Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Standing Order of 12th June 1979, relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be further amended, by inserting Mr. Roy Hughes.—[Mr. Cope.]

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

West Midlands

Mr. John Spellar: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in unemployment in percentage terms nationally and in the west midlands since May 1979.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Between May 1979 and January 1983 the numbers of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 138 per cent. in the United Kingdom and by 200 per cent. in the west midlands region.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the human misery and economic waste represented by those figures? Does he realise that the west midlands is second only to Northern Ireland in the numbers of unemployed to vacancies? Will he persuade his colleagues in the Departments of Trade and Industry to take urgent action to save the car and components industries? Finally, will he repudiate the unconstructive and facile attitude of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in last night's debate on the west midlands?

Mr. Tebbit: Among the hon. Gentleman's unlikely propositions, the latter is probably the most unlikely of all, and he should know that. He should take more interest in the affairs not least of the motor industry, with which the midlands is associated. I note that the Financial Times reported that the car makers
look likely to put up their prices shortly to compensate for the financial impact of strikes which have already caused lost production of more than 50,000 cars this year.
The hon. Gentleman should take comfort from the fact that that was written, not about the west midlands, but about France, and that the west midlands is ready to launch extremely successful new models partly financed by Government funds.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that heavy rate demands are causing the closure and contraction of many industries and having a disastrous effect on jobs in the west midlands? Is he further aware that the Labour-controlled West Midlands county council is threatening to put up rates yet again, while shovelling out money in every direction without asking for either receipts or value for the money spent? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the west Midlands county council that its irresponsibility is costing jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: We shall certainly try to do that. My hon. Friend is quite right. I feel strongly about this, because I represent a London constituency, and the Greater London council is playing the same game of putting people, out of work by increasing costs and putting up prices and then belly-aching about the results.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both those supplementary questions were too long. It is unfair to the rest of the House if hon. Members who are called ask more than one question.

Mr. Varley: In view of the Government's White Paper on public expenditure last week, which predicts that unemployment will rise by a further 280,000 in the next financial year, when does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to start to fall? Bearing in mind the figures that he has given for the west midlands, does he agree that it takes a special kind of incompetence to turn what was once regarded as the heartland of British manufacturing industry into a depressed area?

Mr. Tebbit: I agree. That incompetence was most notably shown during the Labour Government's period of office, when inflation was forced up to record levels and when the motor industry was undermined by policies which led to strikes and disruption of the kind that are now being experienced in France. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the White Paper makes no forecasts of unemployment.

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people under 19 years of age are available for work in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what percentage this is of the age group in that region.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): At October 1982, the latest date for which an analysis by age is available, there were 46,402 unemployed claimants under 19 years of age in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Percentage rates of unemployment by age are not available below national level.

Mr. McKay: Does the Minister accept that that is deplorable? In both Penistone and Barnsley there are 1,706 young people unemployed, and 2,784 in Sheffield, with thousands more in temporary employment chasing about 189 jobs. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider Sheffield's scheme to create 1,000 jobs? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to consider giving assisted area status to both those areas?

Mr. Alison: I agree that one unemployed youngster who wants work is one too many. The hon. Gentleman


will appreciate that there is the prospect of between 45,000 and 50,000 places on the youth training scheme, which is encouraging when one considers the figures that I quoted earlier. The 1,000 jobs could come through the community programme. I hope that the Sheffield city council and other councils in the region will back that programme.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Minister confirm that applicants for the youth training scheme will have access to places in Government offices in Yorkshire and Humberside, or does the Prime Minister's ban still apply to those areas of possible training?

Mr. Alison: I know of no such ban.

Greater Manchester

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will carry out a survey of job losses and job creation in the engineering industry in Greater Manchester in the period 1980 to 1982; and if he will report his findings to the House.

Mr. Alison: Figures of job losses for employees, net of job gains, between June 1978 and September 1981, based on census of employment results, will be available later this year.

Mr. McNally: I am grateful to the Minister for that illuminating reply. If he were to carry out the study for which I have asked, would he not find the same evidence that has come to me and to other hon. Members from Greater Manchester that Government policy in high technology engineering industries is destroying the good with the bad, tomorrow's industries as well as yesterday's, the efficient and the inefficient? That is the real criticism of Government policy and its impact on Greater Manchester's unemployment.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand what is happening in the Greater Manchester area. He does not seem to have heard about Ferranti Instrumentation, Moston and the Royal ordnance factory at Patricroft, which provide expanding employment opportunities in high technology.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Would the Minister look at the early-day motion that lists the engineering firms that have disappeared from Stockport? Does he appreciate that the most depressing thing about the situation in Stockport is the disappearance of most of the engineering apprenticeships? The town, which had a fine tradition for training skilled engineers, is being destroyed by the Government.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs that have been destroyed, but he seems to have forgotten that in the 1960s and 1970s under a Labour Government unemployment doubled. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the news that Fairey Engineering in Stockport has won a £24 million contract from the United States.

Jobcentres

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy regarding the future of jobcentres.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The Government believe that an

efficient and economical public employment service has a worthwhile role to play. We are pleased that, in response to the recommendations of a recent Rayner scrutiny report on the service, the Manpower Services Commission is making a number of changes to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister realise that if we are to return to a policy of full employment those jobcentres will be required by the next Government, if not by this Government? Will he resist any attempts to close existing jobcentres or to move them away from the high streets to the side streets?

Mr. Gummer: They are necessary not only for a future Labour Government but for the next Conservative Government. We want an economical service, and it is necessary from time to time to ensure that the service is used for the best purpose.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Minister aware that the jobcentre and the MSC headquarters in Liverpool, one of the most hard-hit cities in Britain for unemployment, are both due to be closed? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a policy of closing jobcentres makes sense at a time when the MSC is predicting 3·3 million unemployed next year?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that in those circumstances it is important to ensure that we have a sensible and economic service. Therefore, if the MSC decides to consolidate its centres in Manchester, that would seem to be a sensible answer to the problems.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that jobcentres, essentially a good idea, have often been spoilt by the choice of over-expensive premises?

Mr. Gummer: It is important to ensure that we have a jobcentre service that meets our needs. To do that in the most economical way is sensible and prudent housekeeping.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister's reply is disturbing and complacent when the jobless totals are rocketing. Is it not diabolical that the Government should contemplate the first steps in the destruction of a fine service for the unemployed when 250,000 people under the age of 18 are out of work, when there are over 1 million long-term unemployed, when black people are experiencing disproportionate job losses and when women, too, are suffering disproportionately in their job hunting? Do we not need more rather than fewer jobcentres?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is in some way complacent to want an economical service. Surely we should have a service that meets Britain's needs. As the hon. Gentleman comes from Wales, he will know that there are twice as many jobcentres—

Mr. Barry Jones: No.

Mr. Gummer: There are twice as many jobcentres per unit of the population in Wales than in the rest of Britain. Therefore, if we are to have a sensible service, we must meet existing needs, not some airy-fairy needs as suggested by Labour Members.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the direction, advice and facilities of the jobcentres for those wishing to set up in business on their own? Is there the expertise necessary to direct youngsters into that area?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that there are skills which we ought to have but do not have at the moment. We are hoping to do more in that regard. The jobcentres exist to find jobs for people, not to meet other demands which seem to be proposed by Labour Members.

Political Levy

Mr. Wolfson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the political levy.

Mr. Tebbit: I wrote to the general secretary on 11 January asking for comments on the Green Paper and I have made it clear in earlier correspondence that I am always ready to discuss any aspect of trade union reforms with the TUC. However, the general secretary has replied that the TUC will not be making representations to me about the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

Mr. Wolfson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is completely inaccurate to describe the proposals, as some trade union leaders have done, as an attack on trade union funds, since the option to contribute voluntarily remains?

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed. The 1913 Act gave protection to people to make it possible for funds for political purposes to be donated voluntarily. The purpose of the Green Paper is to explore how we can make a reality of that Act, which has been grossly abused.

Mr. Ashton: As the Secretary of State has now written to the general secretary of the TUC, will he also write to all the customers of Mothercare or Marks and Spencer and tell them that every time they shop there they are contributing to Tory party funds? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to protect shareholders in such industries who do not wish to give money to the Tory party?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is as confused as ever. There is no more reason why the customer should have control over a company's profits and what is done with them than he should have over the wages of workers and what is done with them. The hon. Gentleman knows that while there has been considerable concern from many trade unionists about the political levy and the arm twisting that goes on, no such concern has been expressed by shareholders. The amounts involved are wholly disproportionate. Indeed, the Companies Act amply protects shareholders today.

Mr. Lawrence: Why should the trade unionist who has no wish to contribute to the Labour party—and who could blame him?—be forced into having to opt out? Is that not the gravest infringement of the liberty of the individual to choose how he spends his money?

Mr. Tebbit: It is not only the practice of opting out as opposed to opting in which has given grave cause for concern, but the fact that that process is frequently abused and people are prevented from exercising their right to opt one way or the other.

Mr. Varley: I should like to press the Secretary of State on the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Is he being serious? Will he at some stage place before the House a Green Paper telling us how individual shareholders will be consulted and allowed to contract out before they contribute to Tory party funds? If he does not do that, the existing paper will be seen for what it is—a vindictive and spiteful measure against the Labour party.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that will not do. As the Secretary of State for Employment I am concerned to make sure that the protection in the 1913 Act is extended to trade unionists. If the right hon. Gentleman has any complaint about the Companies Act, he had better make it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Skinner: Fascist state.

Northern Region

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the total unemployed in the northern region have been out of work for over a year and over two years respectively.

Mr. Alison: In October 1982, the latest date for which the information is available, the number of unemployed claimants in the northern region who had been unemployed for over 52 and up to 104 weeks was 44,038 or 19·6 per cent. of the total unemployed. The corresponding figures for those unemployed for over 104 weeks were 39,484 and 17·6 per cent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not those figures frightening? Is not the figure for the Workington travel-to-work area even worse, as 45·1 per cent.—nearly half of all male adult workers—have been out of work for more than 12 months? What hope can the Minister give them? Is it not grossly unfair that they should be required to live on supplemetary and unemployment benefit levels that are inadequate to keep them in reasonable conditions?

Mr. Alison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those figures are much too high. If simply spending money could bring them down, the £600 million that we have spent helping British Shipbuilders or the £80 million that we have put into section 7 help for the northern region would have done that already. What is needed is greater competitiveness in British industry and an upturn in world trade. We shall get them both.

Mr. Greenway: What help is the community programme giving to the long-term unemployed? Am I right in thinking that that programme has created many jobs for the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend is right to focus attention on the community programme. The northern region has already had a take-up of 1,000 places on the community programme. That is one of the best records in the country. I hope that there will be more to come.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not of the utmost significance that the percentage of unemployment in the northern region has been the highest, except for Northern Ireland, throughout the Government's period of office? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's regional policies are an utter failure for the north? Will he promise to see


his right hon. Friend, who has provided grossly misleading figures in his Green Paper for the contracting-out of the Durham miners, and undertake to carry out a for complete reappraisal of the Government's policies for the north?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman, who knows the northern region, particularly the north-east, extremely well and knows what has been happening there in recent years, will agree, if he reflects, that we have an extraordinary situation in which not only have the traditional industries continued to decline, but that even the most modern capital-intensive industries, such as textiles and chemicals on Teesside, have had to cut back because of the rise in the price of oil. Even ICI has had to cut back. We cannot win under modern conditions.

Mr. Radice: Has it ever occurred to the Minister that so many people out of work for such a long time is a waste of resources, extremely expensive to the Exchequer and morally unjustifiable, or do the Government share the view of The Times that little can be done, it does not matter anyway and we should all learn to accept mass unemployment?

Mr. Alison: I shall not join in the dispute between The Times leader writer and the hon. Gentleman. I read the correspondence with interest. I am convinced that if money could create jobs the Government would long since have spent money to create such jobs in the north-east. ICI is a good example. There is nothing that we can do to avert the drop in demand for the plastic that ICI makes. As I said, this is due to the rise in the price of oil.

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Woodall: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has increased in Yorkshire and Humberside since May 1979; and if he will express this in percentage terms.

Mr. Gummer: Between May 1979 and January 1983 the number of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 169,000 or 154 per cent. in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

Mr. Woodall: Is the Minister aware that those figures are a terrible indictment of himself, his Department and the Government and that they hide high spots of unemployment such as Hemsworth, the Dearne area and Mexborough, where a generation of young people cannot, and more than likely never will be able to, find jobs because of the Government's policy? Why does not he, his Department and the Government do the right and proper thing, which is to resign, and let the people have a Labour Government?

Mr. Gummer: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's comments about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I share the hon. Gentleman's comments so much that I try not to enter into party political bashing. I fully share his views about the appalling number of unemployed in his area. He will know that my industrial connections with that area make me particularly concerned. There is no hope of dealing with unemployment unless we have the rejuvenation of British industry, and that will come about by being competitive, selling our goods against others in the world and making sure that at long last we are up to date instead of being dragged down by the Labour party's policies.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest surveys of industry in Yorkshire and Humberside carried out by the chambers of commerce show that order books are becoming fuller and that confidence is slowly but surely improving? While employment is bound to lag behind, does not that hold out the best hope for the future?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. All of us would like to have an easy answer to unemployment, but it is a long and difficult answer to make up for 20 years when Britain became uncompetitive, largely because of the Labour party's policies.

Mr. Woolmer: Will the Minister look at the latest report of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry, published last week, which shows that two thirds of all Leeds firms see no signs of economic recovery? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister, who before the election described the Conservative party as the party of opportunity? There has been plenty of opportunity in the City of London. What opportunities have there been for the heartlands of Britain?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad of the following opportunities: Systime in Leeds with its new £30 million factory, which will create 800 new jobs, 450 of them in Leeds; Microvitec in Bradford, which hopes to provide 1,000 new jobs in 1986; and the work on the 600-metre extension of the main runway at the Leeds-Bradford airport. If the hon. Gentleman occasionally spoke well of his region and tried to get more jobs there, we would do a lot better.

Oldham

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many men were registered as unemployed in the Oldham travel-to-work area (a) in May 1979 and (b) at the latest available date.

Mr. Alison: At May 1979 the number of males registered as unemployed—the old basis of the unemployment count—in the Oldham travel-to-work area was 2,638. At Janaury 1983 the number of unemployed male claimants—the new basis of the count—in the area was, 9,736.

Mr. Lamond: Has the Minister noticed that the number of unemployed people in Oldham now exceeds the number of those whom the Tory candidate managed to scrape together to vote for him in Oldham, East at the last election? Is he aware that the people who voted for him did so on the fraudulent claim by the Tory party that, by reducing tax and putting more money into people's pockets, busines would expand and unemployment would fall?
Is he further aware that the Tory party has failed on both those promises?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to draw a correlation between the level of unemployment and voting intentions. It is clear that, despite the present level of unemployment, more people propose to vote Tory this time than at the last election.

West Yorkshire

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment figures in the engineering industry in west Yorkshire for the years 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982, respectively.

Mr. Gummer: The figures for registered unemployed at May each year were 3,102 in 1979; 3,236 in 1980; 7,274 in 1981 and 8,036 in 1982.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware how great a condemnation of his Government's policies those figures represent? Is he further aware that beneath the figures lie the tragedy of the number of apprentices who have become redundant and unemployed during their course of training? Is he further aware that the number of apprentices has halved during his Government's period of office? To whom do the Government offer opportunities? Are they only offered to those in the City and get-rich-quick merchants? Are any opportunities offered to the people in the heartland of this country?

Mr. Gummer: I am well aware of the serious effect of unemployment on regions such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman. No one can gainsay that. I am certainly not aware that the figures are a condemnation of the Government. They are a condemnation of the many years during which Britain became increasingly uncompetitive. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the situation can be turned around in a mere three years, he is very much mistaken. What is more, the majority of people in this country do not agree with him. They support a continuance of this Government's policy. In the engineering industry, the amount that we have spent on the training for skills programme has increased significantly from £7·25 million in 1979–80 to £25 million in 1982–83.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the unemployment figure in Halifax since his Government came to office has risen from hundreds to over seven thousand, and that among the unemployed are hundreds of skilled engineering workers, who are being rendered redundant almost weekly? Will the hon. Gentleman visit some of the engineering firms that still exist and tell them that things are getting better? Is he aware that managements will not agree with that view?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is right in saying that there are many people who suffer considerably from the unemployment that now exists. That is true not only in this country but in the other countries of the industrialised world. Those who wish to draw conclusions merely from the figures in this country misjudge the situation altogether. The hon. Lady must take some blame as a member of a Government who sowed the seed that left this country least able to meet the recession.

Wage Agreements

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has plans to introduce legislation which will make wage agreements legally binding contracts.

Mr. Tebbit: I have no plans to introduce such legislation at present. It is already open to negotiators to make collective agreements legally enforceable, but virtually none has done so. The possibility of legislation to make collective agreements about pay and conditions

of employment legally binding was canvassed in the 1981 Green Paper on trade union immunities but it did not attract widespread support.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that more British firms are entering into two-year and even three-year wage agreements with unions and that this does nothing but good for industrial relations? Does he agree that legally binding contracts would make a major contribution in this respect?

Mr. Tebbit: It is for the parties concerned to decide whether they wish to make their contracts legally binding in general terms. I agree with my hon. Friend that the progress we have made in reducing the rate of inflation to a more tolerable level has made it possible for wage bargainers and managements to come together and to make longer term pay agreements. That is good for industrial relations and for the stability of the firms concerned.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the disturbing situation that is arising in the power industry and the water industry, has the Secretary of State considered the possibility of legally binding agreements in the public sector based upon a payment above the norm? Will he reflect, in making remarks about inflation, that the Financial Times has today reported that heavy increases in raw material and wholesale prices are rapidly coming down the track?

Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Lady looks at the water industry, she will see a long trail of agreements that have been voluntarily entered into and ruthlessly broken by the unions concerned. That gives some cause for concern about how such agreements would be legally enforced. As is typical of the right hon. Lady, if I may say so, she failed to notice that the Financial Times also reported that we have just had one of the lowest figures in the annual rate of increase in factory gate prices for many years.

Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend not think that because these collective agreements, established over many years, have been broken, it is absolutely reasonable to bring in the protection of the law, as in any other civil contract, to stop these agreements being broken and to give some redress to the parties that have to suffer as a result of the breaches of agreement?

Mr. Tebbit: I am well aware of the fury and rage that has been created over the manner in which some of these agreements have been broken. I receive letters from a good many people who are unemployed telling me that they would be very willing to take £140 and £150 a week for doing the jobs of many of the water workers.

Mr. Douglas: Name them.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) seems to suggest that there are not unemployed people willing to work for £150 a week. I take a different view. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) must face the problem of the actual sanctions that would be used in the event of a breach of such contracts. It may be that we shall find a way.

Mr. Greville Janner: Has the Secretary of State not yet learnt that the right place to settle industrial relations disputes is on the shop floor and not in courts of law?

Mr. Tebbit: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is also wrong to settle them on the picket


line. I was appalled by the manner in which a one-day strike was called in the water industry well over a month before the settlement date, without any reason or provocation whatever.

OECD (Unemployment Comparisons)

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of increase in unemployment in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tebbit: Unemployment in the OECD as a whole in the 12 months ending November 1982 is estimated to have increased by 25 per cent. The increase in the United Kingdom was 11 per cent. Unemployment rose faster than in the United Kingdom in a number of countries, including the United States, Canada, Germany and Italy.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not the proper conclusion to be drawn from those figures that while the level of unemployment in Britain is still tragically high, it is an indisputable fact that Government policies have been responsible for an increase that is lower than that in any other industrial country of the Western world?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. and learned Friend is right. In recent times the rate of unemployment in Britian has been rising more slowly than in many other countries. It is interesting, viewed in the longer term, to find that unemployment in Germany rose, during the period of the previous Labour Government here, by 80 per cent. while our level rose by 112 per cent. Germany did better than us. Since May 1979, unemployment in Germany has risen by 144 per cent., and here by 138 per cent. We now appear to be doing rather better than Germany.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that this kind of selective figure impresses anyone outside the House? Will he say how our unemployment rate overall has risen since 1979 compared with the OECD countries?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman must not believe that anyone outside the House, or outside the Labour half of the House, believes that unemployment is a problem solely related to this country. It is significant that the magic formula that the TUC has now discovered for curing unemployment is one that did not work in the period of the Labour Government and is not believed in by any other Government in the world.

Mr. Forman: Does not evidence from Japan and some other countries show that those members of the OECD which have taken the trouble to keep down their inflation rate have had greater success in keeping down unemployment?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. The experience also suggests that those countries which have introduced new technologies and willingly accepted them and which have made use of their greater productivity have prospered to a greater degree than those of us who have dragged our heels.

Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State aware that his selective answers ignore France, where the year-on-year increase is 5 per cent. from December to December, which is considerably lower than ours? Is the right hon.

Gentleman also aware that if one takes the figures since May 1979, not only has our decline in output been the sharpest in the OECD area, but the increase in the United Kingdom unemployment rate is the greatest for all the major OECD countries?

Mr. Tebbit: It is possible that the hon. Member might be accused of using selective statistics. He mentioned France, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to that great French President and patriot, President Mitterrand, who has not only grappled with some of his economic problems, although not with entire success, but has had the skill and success to carry even his Communist partners with him in being staunch, secure and firm in his defence of a nuclear policy, which is more than I can say for the hon. Member and his party.

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what, on a standardised basis, is the present rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and Italy, respectively.

Mr. Tebbit: The seasonally adjusted standardised rates estimated by the OECD for November, are—United Kingdom 12·9 per cent., France 8·3 per cent., Germany 7·2 per cent. For Italy, the latest figure, for July, is 8·6 per cent.

Mr. Straw: Do not these figures show that, despite attempts by the Secretary of State to fiddle the statistics, Britain remains, in unemployment terms, the sick man of Europe, if not of the world? Has not unemployment risen twice as fast in the United Kingdom as it has in the rest of the OECD countries since May 1979? Do not these figures and the fact that this Government have destroyed national income by 5½ per cent.—£14,000 million—since May 1979, compared with an increase of 12½ per cent. under the Labour Government, show the extent of the vicious and cold deception practised on the electorate in May 1979, when he and the Prime Minister promised that there would be more jobs and more co-operation?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one country in the OECD that enjoys the lowest unemployment figures is Switzerland, where work is offered instead of unemployment benefit by the local authorities? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make a study of the system that operates in Switzerland?

Mr. Tebbit: There are many differences between social attitudes in Switzerland and those in this country, and that may be one of them. The Government have produced a community programme that offers 130,000 employment opportunities to the long-term unemployed, and it appears that they will be taken up enthusiastically.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State recall that immediately before the last general election the Prime Minister told the country that there was nothing inevitable about unemployment, with the clear indication that the Tory Government would bring unemployment down? Is it not clearly accepted by the Government that they will fight the next general election with record unemployment and that they will do nothing to bring it down before that day?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my right hon. Friend correctly. There is nothing inevitable about unemployment. However, if, for example, workers in our car industry persistently, when given the same


equipment and the same working conditions, produce far less than their counterparts in Germany and on the rest of the Continent, unemployment will become inevitable.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the unemployment that has been caused by the world recession and by bringing down inflation, we are now having increased unemployment because of our success in bringing in new technology? This is something that any Government, and I hope particularly this one, will have to take into account, because we have to deal with the new circumstances where new technology will get rid of jobs.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right, in that new technologies can so raise production that fewer jobs are required in the particular enterprise. However, if my hon. Friend looks at the example of Japan, where the new technology has been embraced, he will find that unemployment is particularly low. If we consider the fact that we have just seen a couple of months of record retail sales, and a month in which we have had an all-time sales record for new cars, one has to return to the fact that the prime reason for our loss of jobs is that our firms have not been sufficiently good in satisfying the needs of the customer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Nepal. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether Mr. Ian MacGregor has been offered, formally or informally, the chairmanship of the National Coal Board, and if not, is she about to do so? Is the right hon. Lady aware that if that is the case—[Interrruption.] Some Tory Members may think it funny, but the miners do not—many responsible sections of the mining industry will feel that this appointment is based on political dogma and that Mr. MacGregor will be given a licence to butcher the manpower of the mining industry as he has done with that of the steel industry? If this is the case, is she aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long"]—that there will be unity in the mining industry, the like of which she has never seen before? The miners know full well how to deal with callous and stubborn women.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Mr. Siddall's present term as chairman of the NCB ends on 3 July. He is doing a wonderful job, but the Government have always been aware that he wished to serve for only a limited period. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement about Mr. Siddall's successor or about Mr. MacGregor's future when his current term ends in June. The present chairmen of both the NCB and the British Steel Corporation are both very able and are both doing a superb job.

Mr. Luce: In view of the widespread desire for progress on multilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend discuss with Vice-President Bush this week the prospect in Geneva in the next few months of picking up the Soviet disarmament proposals by the scruff of the neck, examining them ruthlessly to test their credibility and thus establishing whether any genuine progress can be made?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend points out, I shall be discussing these matters with Vice-President Bush, I hope tomorrow. We shall be discussing the proposals that are on the table and available for the Soviet Union to pick up if it wishes. We both feel that the way is open for genuine disarmament and that the only thing stopping it is the refusal of the Soviet Union to agree to negotiate genuinely towards the zero option.

Mr. Foot: On the right hon. Lady's latter answer, we shall be happy to have a debate on that subject as soon as the Government are prepared to arrange it.
On her first answer, is the right hon. Lady really trying to tell the House and the country that Mr. Ian MacGregor's rule over the coal industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Steel"]—has been a success story? Does she regard it as successful for the steel industry that the number of people employed in it should be cut in half, that the amount of steel we produce should be almost cut by half and that we should have the fastest shrinking steel industry in the world? Is she proud of that?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, that there is vast overproduction of steel and overcapacity the world over. The world's capacity to produce steel is about 1,000 million tonnes and present consumption is only about 700 million tonnes. I believe that Mr. MacGregor has done a superb job in streamlining our industry and in securing a reasonable proportion of the world's trade and of our home market.

Mr. Foot: Why does the right hon. Lady not take the trouble to compare what has happened in the steel industry in this country with what has happened in other countries? When she took office in May 1979 Britain was the seventh largest steel producer in the world. We have now sunk to fifteenth place, producing less steel than is produced in Poland. Is that what she calls a superb job?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has neglected to say that our steel industry was both overmanned and overpriced. He has also neglected to mention that the Government of whom he was a member had to close down the Ebbw Vale steelworks. That Government ducked many of the difficult decisions that we eventually had to take. The closure of some of our steel plants and the reduction in the number of jobs came later than in some other countries in Europe. I believe that on the whole Mr. MacGregor has done a superlative job and that that is widely recognised.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady name any country in the world where steel production is declining faster than in Britain?

The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any steel industry in the world that was more overmanned than the one that we took over?

Mr. Neil Thorne: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is entertaining the Prime Minister of Nepal.


Is she aware that this is the first occasion on which a serving Prime Minister of Nepal has visited Britain since 1907? At her meeting with him will she express the gratitude of the British people for everything that the Nepalese have done for us through the Ghurkas in the two world wars and in the South Atlantic last year? Does she have any plans to visit Nepal?

The Prime Minister: I shall convey my hon. Friend's message to the Prime Minister of Nepal. I believe that the Ghurkas command universal admiration and we shall continue the traditional friendship between Nepal and Britain.

Mr. Cryer: asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is an act of gross political cowardice for the Secretary of State for Defence to refuse to debate the nuclear issue with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Does she accept that the same moral bankruptcy is demonstrated by her Government, who are now spending more on defence than on education, bleeding the National Health Service dry to pay £10 million for Trident, and turning Britain into a floating United States nuclear weapons carrier? Why does the right hon. Lady not support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Why does she not try to stop spending money on nuclear weapons, instead of spending more and more on them as each year goes by?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman says about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Nor do I think that the House as a whole will accept his remarks.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady knows that she does not like the right hon. Gentleman.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has already replied to the CND in his letter and has pointed out that the CND has gone back on absolutely everything that used to be Labour party policy—that we all supported NATO—[HON. MEMBERS: "Still do".] At least the Labour party used to until now. The CND does not, but most of the Labour party supports NATO. I rather understood that at the most recent Labour party conference the party had not yet decided upon its defence policy and so it has something silly like unilateralism and multilateralism going hand in hand. The CND does not support NATO and it has gone back on Labour party policy, when for years and years there has been a nuclear deterrent. It is one that has served Britain well for 37 years. Most of us still believe in both NATO and a nuclear deterrent. That is our policy. The place to debate nuclear matters is in this House. This Government are one of the few Governments who have provided time for nuclear debates.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister received reports of the prospective loss of 500 jobs from the computer typesetting firm that is planning to move all its machinery to Germany, from where, no doubt, we shall import its products? As her industrial strategy is designed to support information technology, what will she do about this?

The Prime Minister: We have to win these contracts by our performance and by production in this country, and

the right hon. Gentleman should be the first to know and understand that. He should be very much aware that the grants that are available in the special development areas can rival those anywhere in Europe. Beyond that, we have to perform through the management and the work force, and by design.

Mr. Proctor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a continuing commitment to reducing the level of inflation, throughout the remainder of this Parliament and in the ensuing two Conservative Governments for the next 10 years?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that it is in the forefront of Government policy to continue to reduce the level of inflation. There is a good way to go yet. We must remember that some of our main industrial competitors—Germany, Japan and the United States—have lower levels of inflation. If we are to compete with them, we must get our level of inflation down to theirs and below.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware that since the House threw out the immigration rules a few weeks ago many people have been appalled at the squalid bargaining that has been going on within the Conservative party to buy the votes of the racist Members on her Back Benches? Is it not about time that she and her Government put to the forefront the needs of those who will be affected by the immigration rules rather than merely going for a cheap barter for their votes?

The Prime Minister: I understand that new immigration rules will be tabled shortly. The Government have to consider fairness to all sides—[Interruption.] That might be a strange policy to the Labour party, but it is not a strange one for us. The Government remain committed to strict immigration control and immigration policy will be subject to continuous re-examination in the light of changing circumstances, in order to achieve that objective.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any contribution that the taxpayer may be asked to make to ensure that the British public are more aware of the need to defend their freedoms must be seen against the massive support by the Kremlin for the World Peace Council, which has the aim of undermining the defence of our freedoms?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall all robustly put our case to defend those freedoms and not rely on anyone else to put it. Each and every one of us should put it. I am afraid that there are many places in Britain where they are taken too much for granted, and that in itself can be very dangerous. We have to spend sufficient on defence and on putting our case to convince people of the need to defend our way of life and safeguard our children's future.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that in a reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party on 3 February she told the


House that the increase in unemployment between May 1979 and December 1982 had been 135 per cent. and that the Minister of State, in answer to a question from me on 14 December 1982, said that the increase in unemployment between May 1979 and October 1982 was 154 per cent? Will the right hon. Lady and her Government cease to play games with the figures and address themselves to the issue of how to reduce unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The figures that were used, and which I have here, were in each case national figures. They were not OECD figures, but national figures, published on a national, seasonally adjusted basis. The increase in the United Kingdom from May 1979 to December 1982 was 135 per cent. We have the January figures, but no one else has. I gave increases in the national figures for the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Mr. Woodall: If the Prime Minister is really serious in suggesting that Mr. MacGregor has done a superb job in cutting the British steel industry in half because of overproduction, do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister had better think twice before she attempts to do anything similar with the coal industry? Otherwise, she will have an industrial revolution on her hands, the like of which this country has never seen before.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglects to take into account the state of the world steel industry. We have to compete for jobs at home and if we are more efficient in our steel industry we shall have a jolly sight better record on exports than we have yet managed to achieve. We have only 4 per cent. of the world' s exports of steel. There is something to go for, and it will be obtained in this country only by supreme efficiency and not by shouting at a very efficient chairman.

Overseas Students (Fees)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 9 June 1982, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), I set out the Government's initial response to the study by the Overseas Students Trust published on 6 June. I said then that the study represented, in the Government's view, a comprehensive and constructive contribution to the development of future policy on overseas students; and that we would seriously consider its recommendations, although I stressed the financial constraints.
The Government have now completed their consideration of the trust's recommendations and have taken into account the views of the many outside bodies interested in this field.
They have concluded that it is in the national interest, both in the short term and in the longer term, to provide more help to enable overseas students to come to this country for their further and higher education. The Government have therefore decided to increase their support for overseas students by £46 million over the next three years. This will involve an additional sum of £25 million from the contingency reserve and a reallocation of resources within the aid programme amounting to £21 million. This money will be used to finance a number of new measures involving provision for some 5,000 to 6,000 additional scholarships and awards each year.
The measures are as follows. First, the Government will enter into discussions with the Hong Kong Government about their proposals for a shared funding scheme which would have the effect of treating eligible Hong Kong university and polytechnic students as home students for fee purposes. The Government will be ready to consider arrangements to the same end for other dependent territories.
Secondly, additional awards will be provided for students from the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan.
Thirdly, a new scheme of discretionary awards will be introduced. This will be selective and will have the object of attracting students who will not only benefit themselves but whose study and experience here will be of advantage to this country.
Fourthly, there will be some provision for Cyprus, which was singled out in the Overseas Students Trust's study as having a unique combination of claims for special consideration, and for Malaysia, which has traditionally sent the largest number of students to this country.
Fifthly, the Overseas Development Administration's bilateral technical co-operation programme will be expanded to provide additional awards.
Finally, there will be some limited additional provision to enable the British Council to assist the activities of British institutions in attracting fee-paying students from abroad and in strengthening academic links.
In addition to these measures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is favourably inclined towards the trust's recommendation that institutions should have more flexibility over fixing their own fees for overseas students, provided no subsidy is

involved. This is currently being examined in consultation with the University Grants Committee and local education authorities.
My right hon. Friend also hopes to broaden the scope of the overseas research students award scheme and to ensure that the full quota of awards is taken up.
The Government accept and will implement many of the other recommendations in the Overseas Students Trust's study concerning future policy towards overseas students but which do not involve additional public funding, such as spreading funds available for awards widely in order that more students may benefit.
A number of other recommendations in the Overseas Students Trust's study need further examination, for legal and practical reasons. I shall place in the Library of the House in the next few days a paper dealing with these aspects and setting out in greater detail the Government's response to the Overseas Students Trust's study, including the measures which I have outlined in this statement.
The Government believe that it is right and in our interests to encourage students from abroad. We have responded positively to the recommendations of the Overseas Students Trust. I know that this will be widely welcomed both in this House and elswhere.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I should like to begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and to join him in what he said about the Overseas Students Trust's study. I should like also to express our thanks to Professor Peter Williams and the committee, who have produced a comprehensive and detailed report.
Would it not have been much better had such a report been available to the Government before they embarked on the disastrous and ill-considered policy of charging full-cost fees to non-British students? Even so, I think that the statement represents some small advance.
However, it seems odd to me that the right hon. Gentleman should have said in his statement that the Government have at last concluded what most hon. Members knew, that it is in the national interest, both in the short term and the long term, to provide more help to enable overseas students to come to this country. In the meantime, over three or four years, we have continued to anger our friends in the Commonwealth and have discriminated against them in an unforgiveable fashion.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Cyprus. A Cypriot student coming to Britain now to study medicine will pay the best part of £7,000 in tuition fees, whereas a student coming from neighbouring Greece pays £480. The right hon. Gentleman's statement says nothing to deal with that measure of discrimination which currently exists, often to the disadvantage of some of the poorest countries.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, so long as this indefensible discrimination exists between our treatment of EC nationals and those of Commonwealth and other friendly countries, it is no answer merely to up the schemes that have been described, which will be operated by the Overseas Development Administration, the British Council and others? Is it not a fact that the £46 million to which the right hon. Gentleman referred means, first, a reallocation of aid money? From where in the aid budget will that money come?
Secondly, until an agreement is made with the Hong Kong Government about co-funding, has the right hon. Gentleman an estimate of what part of the £46 million has been set aside to provide for that Hong Kong agreement,


and how much will be left for the other schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has described to us? What is the relationship between his statement and the press release issued by the Department of Education and Science last Friday, which referred to an increase of 6 per cent. next year for full-cost student fees?
Finally, the Opposition look forward to a fuller response. We have already waited six or seven months for the response that we now have, and it is the Labour party's intention to ensure that a proper response is given that will repair some of the damage that has been done to our political, cultural and commercial relationships with friendly countries.

Mr. Pym: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to study the details of the scheme in the paper to be placed in the Library in the next few days.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Government came to power we faced excessive public expenditure and it was vital to cut it back. Reluctantly, therefore, we took a decision that affected overseas students' fees. That had to be done for the sake of the economy and in the national interest.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's comments about Cyprus are perfectly true. That country is in a special position for a number of reasons. It is a member of the Commonwealth, it has no university of its own, it has a large refugee population and there are British defence interests there. It is precisely because of the disadvantage at present experienced by Cyprus that I made it clear in my statement that we shall give that country additional assistance.
As for the relationships between EC and Commonwealth students, the House will know that the EC has regulations about students within the Community. We naturally provide for them and gain benefit from our students studying at universities in other Community countries. Nevertheless, one of the intentions outlined in my statement is to give particular assistance to the Commonwealth by increasing the number of fellowships and scholarships, enabling poorer countries of the Commonwealth to benefit from an extended part of the ODA programme and from the new discretionary award schemes. In those and other ways, we intend to assist the Commonwealth.
As I said in my statement, there is some re-allocation of resources within the aid budget, but the aid budget for 1983–84 and for later years has been expanded. We intend to achieve the results that we want by a re-allocation of £21 million, but there is an additional £25 million from the contingency reserve. On the allocation to the countries that I mentioned and to others, I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the paper that will shortly be placed in the library.

Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House is grateful for the Government's positive response to the Overseas Students Trust report? Is he aware that Hong Kong will also be grateful to know that its offer is being considered? Does he realise the importance of time in this, as many thousands of students will now be making plans for the coming academic year and will need to know very soon to what extent they will benefit from the new arrangements and whether they will be operative in time for the next academic year?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks. The Government are grateful for the proposal by

the Hong Kong Government, which we took up immedately and shall pursue at once. We should like to see such schemes adopted in other dependent territories if their Governments suggest it.
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the urgency of this. I hope that the details will be available in the next few days. We shall proceed with the arrangements as quickly as possible. With regard to administration and so on, we shall be assisted by the British Council, which has an excellent record and knowledge in this area, so I believe that we shall be able to get things well organised in time for the next academic year.

Mr. David Steel: I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's constructive statement and hope that it will go some way towards undoing the severe political and economic damage caused by the Treasury and the Department of Education and Science in the past three years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the long-term damage is far greater than the short-term financial savings to which he refers?
When will the Government make a policy decision about the House of Lords judgment on the eligibility of overseas students for domestic student allowances, which is causing great uncertainty in the universities and colleges?

Mr. Pym: I note the right hon. Gentleman's first remark. The number of overseas students coming to this country reached a peak in 1977 and was still well over 80,000 in 1978–79—infinitely more than there had been 10 years previously and at a cost that we then felt was excessive. The number has since fallen to about 55,000 for 1982–83—compared with 39,000 in 1971–72, to put the matter in perspective. I hope and believe that my announcement today will encourage an increase in the number on a very selective basis.
The House of Lords ruling is currently under active consideration by the Government. We are studying the practical effects and implications of that decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has the matter urgently in hand.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman said that the money would be used in part to help deserving students from Commonwealth countries generally and developing countries especially. How much money will be available for that purpose over and above the bilateral arrangements with the three states named in the statement? There cannot be very much if only £10 million per year of new Government money is to be provided.

Mr. Pym: I think that it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could study the details that will be published in a few days.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister does not know the answer.

Sir Edward Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed not only in the House but in this and in many otter countries? Is he aware that in the narrow but important sphere of the law many present-day leaders of Commonwealth countries and in the east and middle east owe their training to the Inns of Court? Is he aware that


without improved facilities of the kind that he has announced future leaders will be trained behind the iron curtain?

Mr. Pym: I am very conscious of the points made by my hon. and learned Friend and of the value of the training that students have had. As a result of the new arrangements, 5,000 or 6,000 more students will have the benefit of scholarships and awards, which I believe will be of immense benefit not only to them and their countries but in many cases to this country, too.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £10 million to £12 million per year is a niggardly response to the efforts of the Overseas Students Trust? He said that some help would be given to Cyprus. Is there any hope that it will in the same form as that given to Hong Kong, with the prospect of home student fees for students from Cyprus? Will he also tell us where the savings have been made in the ODA budget to make all this possible?

Mr. Pym: At present, the shared fees scheme is unique to Hong Kong and is not envisaged for Cyprus. The basis on which students from Cyprus come to this country will be very much in the hands of the universities and polytechnics concerned and of the British Council, which will help us to contribute to the cost of students from Cyprus who are currently so disadvantaged.
There will be only a small adjustment in the ODA budget in 1983–84 and a slightly larger adjustment in 1984–85 and later years. That will come out of money not so far allocated and out of the additional resources that the Government have made available for the aid programme.

Mr. Tom McNally: It is always nice to hear a Minister admit that the Government got things wrong, but does it not show an appalling lack of co-ordination between the various Departments as to where Britain's true interests lies?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You have got it wrong.

Mr. McNally: You think that foreigners start in Nottingham.

Mr. Skinner: No, I think that you have got it wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McNally: Has the right hon. Gentleman's announcement anything to offer to refugee students, an area in which this country has a justifiably proud record?

Mr. Pym: I do not accept that there has been any lack of co-ordination. First, total public expenditure was far too high. Secondly, there had been an enormous increase in the number of overseas students, at a vast cost that the Government felt we could not afford at that time. We have now proposed a scheme which I believe will be very helpful and positive in that it will provide for a further 5,000 or 6,000 scholarships and awards. There are no specific proposals for refugees, but they are in no sense excluded from the scheme.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that refugees already have home student status? Does he further agree that Hong Kong is a special case, bearing in mind its relationship with China, and that

in recent years there has been a substantial drop in the numbers of Hong Kong students coming to this country? Does he also agree that the complaints of the Opposition are synthetic? When overseas student fees were first raised by that great liberal Socialist, Mr. Crossman, they received their highest boost under the then hon. Member for The Wrekin, who was the Minister responsible for higher education?

Mr. Pym: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the history of this matter. Hong Kong is a special case. The Hong Kong Government are proposing a fee-sharing scheme that will produce many students. The fact that they are paying for approximately half of the cost is a great help. It is a scheme that the Government would wish to see extended.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement as far as it goes. Apart from the limitations of the Prime Minister's comprehension and compassion, will he explain why the Government adopted their original benighted approach?

Mr. Pym: For the reasons that I have already explained this afternoon to the House.

Mr. Richard Luce: Both my right hon. Friend and the Government have reviewed the overall national interest on this issue. As there is a welcome shift from the previous indiscriminate subsidies for overseas students to the identification of students warranting support in their national interests, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the interdepartmental co-ordination group will remain in operation and advise on the progress of those policies and the identification of new areas that need support?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. As resources are limited, it is important that we use the resources allocated to this cause in the most economical way. The scholarship scheme provides the essence of the right approach to this subject.
If necessary, I shall call together at any time the interdepartmental co-ordination group that studied the Overseas Students Trust report so carefully. The Departments have worked closely together in producing the result that I announced this afternoon.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement mean that no account has been taken by the Government of the report on educational interchange published last year by the Commonwealth Secretariat? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman take on board its central recommendation that Commonwealth students should occupy a central position in our policy for overseas students?

Mr. Pym: We have taken into account all representations that we received from interested parties both inside and outside the United Kingdom, particularly in the Commonwealth. They stand to gain considerably from the announcement that I have made this afternoon.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Is it not a fact that students in Cyprus have been tempted to go to Moscow rather than to western countries? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is better for students to be on the overseas aid budget or on the trade budget than on the domestic education budget as we can get credit for that as part of our aid programme in future?

Mr. Pym: It is not the intention that the cost of those students and the money involved should fall on the education budget. It will come partly from the OAB Vote and partly from the Contingency Reserve. For accounting reasons, which I do not totally understand, it must be transferred to the Foreign Office diplomatic Vote. That is a technical detail that need not concern us.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the damage done to the British Council by the previous increases will take a very long time to correct? However welcome these improvements are, it will take many years to redress the balance of antipathy that the increases of the past three years have created.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that in countries such as Cyprus these additions, however helpful, will be insufficient? I welcome the improvements, but will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the administrative arrangements with the British Council are able to be implemented fully for the academic year 1983–84?

Mr. Pym: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said and noted his thoughtful comment. My announcement this afternoon will bring about an improvement in the position, wherever one wishes to lay any blame, if there be blame to lay for what happened previously. I have explained the background to this problem.
The British Council does a splendid job. It is a major contributor to our relationships with many countries and in many other ways through technical co-operatiion and so forth. We shall rely on the British Council further to help in the process to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been considerable pressures from Conservative Members for this change? At last it has come. It is important in this matter to make the best use of the aid available. Can he assure the House that those who receive bursaries to come to this country actually need them? It must not be assumed that every overseas young person who wishes to come to learn in this country is without funds. Those who have funds should be able to pay and those who have not should get help.

Mr. Pym: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We wish to make sure that we put limited resources to the best possible use. An important element is selecting the right students who will not only benefit themselves and their countries but will mutually benefit Britain. We intend to take a great deal of trouble and care about that.

Mr. Clive Soley: I realise that this is a welcome, if limited, retreat from the Government's foolishly harsh attack on overseas students. If the Government had listened to the views of the Opposition a long time ago, the damage done to this country's reputation would not have occurred. There would not have been the response that we had from the Malaysian Government, there would not have been criticisms of the British Council, and places such as Hammersmith hospital would not have had their financial planning arrangements undermined by this stupid and irrational attack.

Mr. Pym: Without accepting in any way that the cause and effect of the hon. Gentleman's questions are related

to each other, in so far as the statement contributes to the improved position, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to welcome it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask whether Commonwealth scholarships will be allocated on a population or needs basis per country or a combination of those factors? Within those countries, will there be scholastic competition or will it be a question of means-testing those who apply?

Mr. Pym: I cannot give an exact answer to that question. It must be done through discussions with the institutions involved, by consultation with the British Council and by selecting students who will gain the greatest benefit for themselves, their countries and Britain.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary dispute the calculation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) that in fact there is only £10 million of new money? On what basis of British national interest is it right to find £10 million of new money for overseas students annually, with all that that entails for our future commerce and trade, when next year £684 million is to be the defence factor alone for the Falklands?

Mr. Pym: We have already spent £65 million a year on this subject. If we divide the £46 million over three years, that is an increase of £15 million a year. The figure rises from £65 million to £80 million. That is an increase of more than 25 per cent. I hope that that is a considerable advance in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wishes to go.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call those hon. Members who wish to speak. Will they ask one question? Otherwise, they will be preventing another hon. Member from being called.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. Can he be more forthcoming about Hong Kong? Have the Government accepted the proposals for sharing fees put forward by the Hong Kong Government? If not, when does he expect to make an announcement on the Government's decision?

Mr. Pym: We are responding positively to the suggestion made by the Hong Kong Government.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are grateful to him and to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for reversing what many people believed was a most unsatisfactory policy? Education for overseas students is of tremendous importance to many people and to the future of this country as well as to their countries. Will my right hon. Friend find out whether anything can be done to help the unsatisfactory position in Malaysia where the Chinese-Malay students are being treated so unfairly?

Mr. Pym: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks and for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and my other right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government who have been extremely helpful in the solution of this problem. We must work out the precise details of the scheme, but our


intention is to make it less difficult for Malaysia to send the many students that it has traditionally sent. It is, after all, an important Commonwealth country, and the fact that it has been hard hit by what has happened during the past three years justifies a change in policy now.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole nation will be grateful if this defeat of the views of the Secretary of State for Education and Science has set a precedent?

Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend should be thanked for this most generous Government offer that many Conservative Members have advocated for overseas students, especially from the poorest country in the Commonwealth, Sri Lanka. Has he made sufficient preparation to accept between 5,000 and 6,000 students in universities, such as Southampton? Has adequate consultation been carried out and is September the date for the first students to arrive under the new scheme?

Mr. Pym: We are referring to the next academic year, but there has already been considerable consultation; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is in touch with the University Grants Committee, the local education authorities and others who are interested in the matter.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I share the general welcome for my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that those of us who have served on parliamentary delegations abroad, especially to Commonwealth countries, were saddened by the hostile reaction to the statement by the previous Secretary of State? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will mean a consequent lack of continuing good will towards Britain from the young people of those countries for many years to come?

Mr. Pym: I hope very much that, as a result of the scheme, relations will be improved, in the sense that the regrets that were expressed previously are no longer heard. I hope that, building on that, we can improve the position gradually over the years.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I especi-ally welcome what my right hon. Friend said about students from Malaysia. However, students from Singapore are equally deserving, and that country has not had strained relations with the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend have close consultations with the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee to try to ensure that Commonwealth

students attend universities, such as Bradford, Brunel, Aston, Salford and others that have suffered especially from the recent cuts and have a technological bias that could be very valuable for the countries concerned?

Mr. Pym: As I have just said, my right hon. Friend is already consulting those authorities. This is a policy decision designed very much to benefit Commonwealth countries, and I am sure that that will be appreciated throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr. Guy Barnett: In view of the question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir K. Lewis) about the operation and administration of scholarships as a means of trying to increase the number of students in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision that I understand has been taken to abolish the key post of chief education adviser in the Overseas Development Administration which will come to an end when the present occupant retires?

Mr. Pym: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know whether reconsideration is appropriate, but I shall certainly take on board what he has just said.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to have your advice on what I believe is a point of order. We have just heard a statement in response to a publication by the Overseas Students Trust in June last year. In the intervening period there has been a much more important decision, with all due deference to the Overseas Students Trust, about the Government's responsibilities for overseas students within the law. That was the Law Lords' judgment on 16 December that overseas students who had been resident in Britain for more than three years should be regarded as being ordinarily resident and, therefore, entitled to home student status.
The Foreign Secretary said that consideration is being given to that matter in the Department of Education and Science, but as local education authorities, the students themselves and higher education institutions are now in a limbo of uncertainty and insecurity, and some of those students may be owed sums of up to £20,000, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask that most urgent attention be given to this more important consideration that affects students from all parts of the globe, including the Commonwealth, not just those to whom the Government saw fit to respond in today's statement?

Mr. Pym: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter is being considered urgently, as I said in answer to a supplementary question. The full legal and financial implications cannot yet be fully assessed, but, as soon as they have been, an announcement will be made.

Prefabricated Houses

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): Following my announcement on 3 September last year about potential defects in Orlit houses, the Scottish Special Housing Association has examined 30 houses in three sites in the west of Scotland and has found signs of deterioration of the reinforced concrete structure resulting from carbonation and the use of chlorides. Further tests on two Orlit houses in north-east Scotland confirmed this finding. Similar deterioration has been reported in some other types of prefabricated houses using structural reinforced concrete.
Although the Building Research Establishment has advised that this process of deterioration is gradual, I am asking the Building Research Establishment, in co-operation with selected local authorities, to gather detailed data in order to provide technical information and guidance. I am also asking local authorities to provide information about prefabricated reinforced concrete houses in their areas that were built between the wars and during the 1940s and 1950s. There are estimated to be about 150,000 such houses, of several different types of design and construction.
The House will understand the importance for both public and private owners of such houses that fuller technical data must be obtained to establish, with more certainty than is possible on present evidence, in what types of houses and to what degree deterioration may occur. Although on the evidence at present available the combination of circumstances is not the same as that which was sought to justify assistance for the owners of Airey houses, I shall of course be ready to consider any new factors that may emerge in the light of the technical data now being sought.
Meanwhile, a prospective purchaser of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses built between the wars and during the 1940s and 1950s should pay particular attention to the condition and durability of the structure before proceeding with the purchase. Local authorities and other public owners should certainly do this before valuing a house for sale, and my Department is advising them accordingly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Don't buy.

Mr. Stanley: I am also arranging for letters to be sent to the Building Societies Association, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyers, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Institution of Structural Engineers asked that their members should be made fully aware of the need for special care in assessing the condition of those houses for valuation or other purposes.
My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are taking similar action. A copy of the letter being sent today to local authorities has been placed in the Library.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the House will be grateful for the information that he has given so far? What does he intend to do to ensure that funds are available for both private and public owners of Orlit houses who must remedy the defects in their homes? What advice will he give to local authorities

such as Bolton, which has embarked on programmes of improvements to Orlit properties? Will the Minister say clearly whether he intends to extend the compensation that he recently made available to owners of Airey properties and, if so, will he make funds available to local authorities on an equal basis?
Does the Minister realise that his statement proves that he was completely wrong when he said that the problems that face Airey house owners were unique, as he has now said that there are another 150,000 reinforced concrete houses that could have structural defects? In view of the growing anxiety about these problems, will the Minister institute a full inquiry into all system-built accommodation as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Stanley: With regard to an extension of the Airey house scheme to supply funds for the houses that are in private ownership, I cannot add to what I have already said. It is evident that a great deal more technical information should be made available. We shall consider the results of that technical data. With regard to the public sector, as the hon. Lady knows, local authorities substantially underspent this year and last year. Next year, there is a significant increase in real terms in housing provision for local authorities.
We shall be going through the normal housing investment process for the year after that, and local authorities will be able to make their HIP bids to us in the normal way. The hon. Lady said that I said that the problem with Airey houses was unique. I should like to make it quite clear that there are unique features of the Airey house system with regard to its design.
Following further work that is taking place through the Scottish Special Housing Associaton and being evaluated by the Building Research Establishment, it is clear that there is a wider problem with regard to deterioration of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. I received the technical appraisal by the Building Research Establishment on Orlit houses in Scotland only a short while ago, at the end of January. I have taken the earliest possible opportunity to give the House the information that is available to us.

Mr. Tony Durant: Will my hon. Friend accept that this is a serious matter for many people who live in these houses? Does he agree that both sides of the House are responsible for the problem? Will he ensure that the people who purchased those houses and local authorities which own them are given information about how to put the houses right as quickly as possible?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right when he refers to the seriousness of the problem for the people who bought their homes. I fully recognise that. He is entirely right to say that the seeds of the problem go back over a considerable period. We are now concerned with houses that were built between 30 and 60 years ago. We fully accept that the Government have a responsibility to deal with the problem. That is why I have made a statement. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall make available and publicise the technical information as it becomes available to us. We shall make it as widely available as we can.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that in Clarkston, in my constituency, those people who lived in prefab houses would have been happy to remain there if the local authority had undertaken


a progamme of rehabilitation? Is he aware that, far from underspending, the local authority found that the Scottish Office was simply not willing to make capital available? Will the Minister bear that in mind? Will he also bear in mind that local authorities want to make some of these houses viable and permanently habitable? Will he assist them and the construction industry?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. My reference to underspending related only to English housing authorities.

Mr. Chris Patten: What about Unity home owners? When will the Minister be able to make a statement about compensation for them?

Mr. Stanley: I can confirm that Unity homes are among the homes that the Building Research Establishment will be taking a special and early look at. They are of a similar type of construction to Orlit houses. As I made clear in my statement, I am not able to go further than I have already. We shall consider the results of the new technical surveys that we shall be carrying out.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of thousands of families are living in intolerable conditions because of damp in industrially built houses that have been constructed in the past 20 years? Is he prepared to consider extending the grant—it should be a 100 per cent. grant—to local authorities to renovate these properties? Does he agree that it was not their fault that the properties were built but that they were taken for a ride by Governments of both political colours, building companies and architects?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have changed the subsidy rules so that capitalised repairs expenditure by local authorities on houses that were built in the past 30 years have, as a result of action that the Government have taken, now become eligible for subsidy. Condensation in system-built flats and houses that were built in the 1960s and 1970s is outside the scope of this statement.

Mr. John Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that properties about which he is talking were built under the "homes fit for heroes" schemes and that he has had the courage to come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to bring the issue to the public's attention? Will he confirm that tenants of Orlit and other prefabricated houses will have the benefit, under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980, to transfer from their present properties to others?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are discussing houses that were built from the 1920s to the end of the 1950s. Assuming that the houses are part V houses—the bulk of them will be—secure tenants who are moved will be able to count the time that they have spent as secure tenants towards their right-to-buy qualification for discount.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the Minister aware that during an Adjournment debate in December I warned him that his decision to deal with Airey houses was only the tip of a rapidly surfacing iceberg? I predicted that to deal with all the deteriorating industrial houses he might

have to spend a minimum of £3,000 million. Why will he not include houses in my constituency that were built under the Caspon system, eight of which have been bought from the local authority and the owners of which each face a bill of £10,000 for structural defects? He is offering them no assistance. Why is he being so selective in his assistance? Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that the problem is the Government's responsibility and is due to the failures of successive Governments? Does he accept the principle that he must underwrite the cost of putting right the defects?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are discussing a large number of systems that were built at different times and used a great variety of materials. It is essential, if we are to have any consistency, to do detailed technical work. Only then can we see the extent of the technical problems, whether they are peculiar to some systems and whether some systems are free from such problems. We must improve our technical base urgently. I am talking in terms of months to examine the 150,000 properties that I have mentioned.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister accept that his statement today reinforces the view of many Opposition Members, and probably of many Members on the Government side, that there is a need to maintain publicly financed, independent building research? Has not this been highlighted by what has happened? Will he reimburse local authorities for the losses in which they will be involved in carrying out the research he asks for? What about the people whose houses are blighted by the statement he has made today? Are they to be helped?

Mr. Stanley: On the question of blight, the hon. Member is quite right. This was our dilemma. I fully recognise that the statement I have made today will have an impact on those who have bought properties. I must make it quite clear that these properties have not been bought in just the past two or three years. They will have passed into the private sector over a period of probably 10 or 15 years, under successive Governments. However, we have an inescapable obligation to those who may be contemplating buying these properties in the next few weeks or months. We have now received technical information which, in the Government's view, it is totally incumbent upon us to disclose at the earliest opportunity. That I have done. While I recognise the impact on those who have already bought, I would have been failing seriously in my duty had I not taken the action I have today.

Mr. Den Dover: Could the Minister advise the House whether the dwellings concerned are single or two-storey, what sort of failure has been evidenced, and if there is any imminent danger from structural collapse?

Mr. Stanley: At the moment we do not possess a detailed description of the various house types and this is one of the things we shall be getting from local authorities. However, as a broad generalisation, it would be right to say that it is low-rise housing. As to the nature of possible defects, we foresee a process of gradual deterioration of the reinforced concrete structural members. That is the essential problem. On the advice I have at the moment, therefore, it will be a gradual process rather than a risk of sudden collapse. Obviously, if I receive further advice,


based on the technical evaluation that we shall now be doing, that there is a safety risk in respect of a particular group of houses, I would make that known and take the appropriate action at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that the statement he has made today indicates either incompetance in his Department, at worst, or a considerable lack of co-operation? Is he aware that only a fortnight ago, on 24 January, the Under-Secretary of State, in answer to questions from all parts of the House, told us when we raised the question of other forms of housing that Airey houses were unique? We now know that they are not unique. Will the Minister also tell the House why he is stopping at 1950 and not going on to the 1960s and 1970s, because those houses will be coming next? Will he confirm that I have given him information about Parkinson-framed houses over the past 12 months which offers plenty of evidence that this type of housing is inadequate and liable to fall on the heads of those who occupy it? Will he also confirm that his statement today can only be construed as telling those people who live in this type of housing not to buy it?

Mr. Stanley: First, when the hon. Member refers to the comment made by the Under-Secretary of State, my colleague was quite right, as I have told the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), to say that there are particular features of Airey houses that are special in terms of the design factor.
As to why we are not going beyond the 1950s, the advice I have is that the particular group of system-built houses that we are concerned with today—the reinforced concrete prefabricated houses—built to the particular standards of reinforced concrete construction that have given rise to these problems was built from the 1920s to the end of the 1950s. Since then knowledge of concrete and of this problem has improved. The use of chlorides, for example, has been reduced. The advice I must give the House today is that it is this group, up to the end of the 1950s, that appears at the moment possibly to be at risk.

Mr. John Cartwright: While the deterioration of the multi-storey, system-built blocks of flats put up under the industrialised building boom of the 1960s is clearly beyond the scope of the Minister's statement—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why?

Mr. Cartwright: —may I ask whether he would, nevertheless, accept that the problems it poses for hundreds of thousands of families living in those properties are pressing and severe? Will he give that matter a much higher priority than it has received in recent years?

Mr. Stanley: I fully recognise the problems created in certain of those blocks but I must also tell the hon. Member that the local authorities concerned bear a very real responsibility, although in most cases it is probably the predecessors of the present-day authorities which took those basic design and construction decisions in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Private builders were responsible.

Mr. Stanley: I am very much aware of the problem. It is not simply a matter of design; there are also major

issues of management. As far as the latter is concerned, we have, through the priority estate project, produced some very constructive, radical and efficient proposals for dealing more satisfactorily with management problems in high-density estates.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Whilst my hon. Friend's statement will be regarded as a welcome step in the right direction, is he aware that there are many owners of Orlit houses in the London borough of Sutton in my constituency who have been concerned about this for a long time? Since the condition of Orlit houses is, to all intents and purposes, very similar to those of Airey houses, could he give an undertaking that this study will be concluded in the very near future so that action can be taken?

Mr. Stanley: I am well aware of the interest in Orlit houses in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will give him the assurance I have given previously, that I very much recognise the uncertainty and difficulty created for those who have purchased Orlit houses over the past 10 or 15 years. It will be our objective to try to reach some early conclusions and to make technical data available as early as possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Speaker: Order. I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye throughout, and then to move on.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister recall that I recently wrote to him about 900 houses in my constituency, which are affected by the same problems as these houses? Will he give a categorical assurance that the 27 individuals who bought houses in Leicester under the Government's right-to-buy scheme will receive financial compensation at least as generous as that given to people who bought Airey houses?

Mr. Stanley: As I have said to other hon. Members, it is not possible today to approach this piecemeal. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what you are doing."] It is essential to look at the broad group of properties that have been constructed in this way. However, I can assure the hon. Member that the houses about which he is concerned in his constituency—the Henry Boot houses—along with the Unity houses, will be among those we shall be looking at in the first phase of the technical studies by the Building Research Establishment.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary of State will be visiting my constituency tomorrow, when he will be told of an estate of 1,000 dwellings built by Bison Northern Concrete only 11 years ago that is now being demolished? Does he not think it a national scandal? Should not someone, those who have made vast amounts of money, be called to account? Does he not agree that there should be a public inquiry?

Mr. Stanley: The Bison system is completely different from those referred to here. The hon. Member will also have to ask himself why the local authority to which he refers decided to construct those houses some 10 years ago.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does not the Minister think this is only the tip of an iceberg and that there should be continual probing of these matters? Does not he accept


that the treatment of the local authorities is very shabby indeed, and that, when the Minister talks about the HIP allocation, this is money that is borrowed and has to be paid back with interest, with the result that if any HIP allocation takes into consideration the Airey-type houses it means that the allocation is far lower than first expected? Is he aware that revenue grant is caught in "Heseltine's clawback" and, with capital receipts, some local authorities wish to use these in another manner, with the result that the housing programme is greatly affected?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member is saying that his local authority wants to use housing receipts for non-housing purposes, that is a judgment—[Interruption]—it is free to make.

Mr. McKay: I did not say that and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Stanley: It is up to the local authorities to use the housing receipts or non-housing receipts in whatever way they choose. I come back to what I said previously, which is that nationally—and it is true of a very high proportion of English authorities—local authorities went into this financial year with very substantial unspent housing capital receipts, about £800 million worth. This year they have generated more housing capital receipts. For this year, 1982–83, we are going into another significant underspend and we have increased the allocations for next year. I believe the great majority of local authorities have a very substantial capacity to increase their expenditure.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his statement touches the fringe of a major, widespread problem and that local authorities will have to bear the cost of demolishing many system-built houses with design faults? Will he undertake to wipe off the debt charges on such properties where they exist for local authorities? Is the Minister aware also that he is storing up similar problems for some future Minister for Housing and Construction by abandoning Parker Morris standards, by proposing the privatisation of building regulations, by cutting maintenance moneys to local authorities and by supporting the widespread use of new systems such as timber-framed houses and no fines?

Mr. Stanley: I disagree wholly with what the hon. Gentleman said about storing up problems for the future. The general level of house building is much higher, and has been during the 1970s and 1980s, than during the period about which we are talking. Building technology has advanced enormously since the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which is the period with which we are dealing today. Unlike any previous Government, we have taken detailed administrative steps at the Building Research Establishment to set up on a systematic basis the identification of possible defects and the dissemination of information about defects to local authorities. If that had been done earlier, a great deal of unnecessary expenditure might have been saved.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Minister return to the first question he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) about the possibility of a wide-ranging inquiry, because, if we do not have a comprehensive examination of what is plainly a serious occurrence, will he not be stumbling back to the Dispatch Box again and again with depressing news similar to that which we have had today?
Presumably, the Minister will be dealing with the Scottish aspect of this problem as well. How many Orlit houses are there in Scotland? I understand that it is in the region of 6,000, but I should be grateful if he would confirm that. Is the Minister aware that in the city of Glasgow alone there are 960, of which almost half have been modernised during the past year or two? In Scotland the housing revenue account figures have dropped in real terms by about 27 per cent. during the past three years. It will certainly fall substantially again this year. An additional burden on capital spending as a result of the deterioration in this type of houses will be bad news for Glasgow and tenants in Glasgow. If extra expenditure is needed, we expect direct and adequate help from central Government.

Mr. Stanley: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's figure for Orlit houses distributed in Great Britain. We estimate that there are some 6,000 Orlit houses in Scotland. There are approximately 9,000 Orlit houses in England and Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about revenue consequences. On the subject of an inquiry, I believe that the crucial need is to try to make certain that we have a much more satisfactory data base for the group of houses that have been the subject of my statement.
It has been recognised on both sides of the House that the effect of making the statement will be to create difficulties for those who have been buying these houses for the past 10 or 15 years. It is essential to reach conclusions and have the necessary technical data for this significant group of 150,000 houses. It may well be that there has to be further examination of other types of industrialised building. If that is the case, we shall have to do it. The immediate requirement is to improve the technical data base on this group and to reach conclusions.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the three hon. Members who wish to make applications under Standing Order No. 9, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund Act 1983
2. Representation of the People Act 1983
3. Ullapool Pier (Works) Order Confirmation Act 1983
4. British Waterways Act 1983

London Councils (Use of Funds)

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Members in the order in which they notified me that they would seek to make application under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. George Cunningham: I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
recent decisions by London borough councils and by the Greater London council to use public funds for party political purposes.
The evidence on which this application is based is documentary, not assertions, from confidential documents which have reached me in the course of this week. You might immediately think, Mr. Speaker, that if there is truth behind the allegations there must be a legal remedy. There is not, in fact, in part because section 137 of the Local Government Act gives to each local authority power to spend up to a 2p rate, which in the case of my borough council, Islington, means £1 million, for purposes which are hardly circumscribed at all. That, if only that, gives local authorities tremendous leeway to use money improperly.
I submit that if the facts, which I shall allude to only briefly, are at all true there has almost never been a better basis for Parliament to be given an opportunity to examine the matter further, because what is involved here is attempts by people in high places in local authorities in London—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he is welcome to have the evidence and he can say what he thinks about it on some other occasion. I do not think that he will be very happy about the facts that I shall give. If the facts are correct, what is involved is an insidious process by which people in high places in local authorities in London are using public funds to pursue party political ends. More seriously, it is an insidious process by which people in high places are losing sight of the distinction between party and public. It is a process which, in other countries, Czechoslovakia for example, led to the loss of their parliamentary democracy. That is something in which Government must be interested.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that a few weeks ago the House took such a serious view of the possible allocation of funds by the Greater London council on a political basis that it referred one manifestation of that to the Committee of Privileges, which has that issue before it currently.
On 4 January this year, a meeting took place at Islington town hall between GLC councillors and Islington borough councillors. The main discussion was about how the GLC was to try to switch its funds on a political basis. The GLC representatives then pointed out that they were in the middle of an exercise along those lines. They said that part of the exercise
was to establish how the GLC, through its budget, could assist Labour boroughs by taking on some of their programmes. Final discussions would take place in the Labour group on 9 February"—
that is, tomorrow—
with the budget being made on 15 February.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the point of order afterwards. The hon. Member will outline why the matter is urgent and specific—

Mr. Frank Allaun: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: —and why the House should turn its attention to it.

Mr. Cunningham: The quotation that I have just read shows that certain decisions are to be taken tomorrow and certain others next week. Some of the urgency of the matter is that these secret documents—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It has been going on for weeks.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, it has been going on for months; we have just received the proof of it.
Another part of the document says:
The mechanism for redistribution would be for GLC committees to consider individual borough-sponsored projects, but it was envisaged that the GLC Labour group would ensure a strategic view.
Those of us who deal with boroughs such as Islington know what is meant by "taking a strategic view." It means switching the money to the people of whom one approves politically.
That is the least—

Mr. Skinner: At least the councillors faced the electors in Islington—the hon. Gentleman did not.

Mr. Cunningham: That is the least of the serious considerations that I ask you to take into account, Mr. Speaker. For the past few months, leaders of Labour councils, including the leader of the GLC, have been meeting together. There is nothing wrong with that, but, on 7 December, they met—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not make the sort of speech that he would make if his application were granted. He must justify his application.

Mr. Cunningham: The justification is that the evidence is only now available—[Interruption.] I am only picking out enough points to show the nature of what could be deployed on a fuller occasion. What happened on 7 December, and what is happening now, is that a decision was taken to use £2,000 of public funds from each of the 10 Labour-controlled councils that were represented at the meeting to finance that meeting of Labour leaders in London.
That meeting was chaired by the leader of Islington borough council and attended by leaders of about 10 Labour-dominated councils in London. A large part of the discussion was directed to how public funds in the hands of those councils should be used to finance the continued operation of a party-politically based association of Labour leaders in London.

Mr. Skinner: That is a great idea.

Mr. Cunningham: The meeting was of a confessedly party political character—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must bear with the argument—

Mr. Cryer: It is a speech.

Mr. Speaker: I know, but the hon. Gentleman is not alone in using an application under Standing Order No. 9 for that purpose. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has almost finished.

Mr. Cunningham: I perfectly understand that Labour Members do not wish—

Mr. Frank Allaun: What about Heseltine?

Mr. Cunningham: If it were the case that London Labour councils were using their rate money to finance this kind of operation; if it were the case—the evidence in the documents proves that it is the case—that Labour councils were using officers of borough councils to conduct campaigns of a party political nature; if it were the case that they have already used £2,000 each to finance that—some of it was used to plan how they could use £4,000 apiece to finance its continuation—I submit that that would be a justification for my case. The only question is whether there is evidence to support that.

Mr. Skinner: It has got more to do with O'Halloran than anything else.

Mr. Cunningham: Labour Members do not want to hear this because they do not want the facts to be known.
Officers of London borough councils were present at the meeting, and so were representatives of the Labour party, as such. So were two Labour Members of Parliament. They undertook to give their co-operation in this endeavour. That is an abuse of public funds and public offices—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has come to his final point, and I must hear it.

Mr. Cunningham: I shall put my point in the form of a question, and then a statement. If it were the case that one Labour council in London were using thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds of rate money to finance a free give-away newspaper, if the people who applied for that money were a group that contained one Labour councillor, one officer of the council of known party affiliation, namely Labour, and if the committee that was to run the newspaper had, under its constitution, to include only one political representative who must be a representative of the local government committee of the three Labour parties of Islington, would not that position justify a debate in the House? [Interruption.] Even the noise that has been taking place during my presentation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself no good.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his submission to me because I have two other applications before we get to the main business of the day.

Mr. Cunningham: Even the attempts to prevent this application being made are evidence of what is at issue. There are some occasions when Parliament must see the incipient cancer that exists. It will take just half a day further to expose the issue. I submit that my application is justified. I hope you will take my points into consideration, Mr. Speaker. There are thousands and thousands of decent members of the Labour party outside the House who would also wish this matter to be exposed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek to leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
recent decisions by the London borough councils and the Greater London council to use public funds for party political purposes.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Bruce Milan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard a Standing Order No. 9 application which started at 4·34 pm. It is now 4·47 pm, or 13 minutes later. Even with interruptions, many of us will not recollect anyone making such an application being allowed to deploy what is in effect a speech in favour of that application. We should appreciate your guidance on that, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition believe that what we have just heard is a complete abuse of our procedures.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with deep interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a growing custom. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) got very near to making a speech—I acknowledge that—but the House is aware that applications under Standing Order No. 9 have been made, and I have no doubt will be made again, for the purpose of advancing a cause.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. George Cunningham: Why are you so sensitive? What do you not want known?

Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman should not interrupt. There is plenty of time—

Mr. Cunningham: You do not want to be interrupted, do you, Frank?

Mr. Allaun: I think—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position are unparliamentary. I hope that the House, in its own interests, will allow us to proceed with the other two applications. I do not know what further points of order can be raised, because the matter has been concluded.

Mr. Allaun: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will agree that speeches under Standing Order No. 9 should be confined to showing that the case is urgent and important. You usually confine speeches strictly. On this occasion, 13 minutes were allowed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not sit here and listen to such criticisms. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was making his case. He took longer than many hon. Members take, but he is not alone in that as we can see if we look at Hansard.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you make your decision on an application under Standing Order No. 9—and especially your decision now—

Mr. Cunningham: The Labour party has something to hide.

Mr. Skinner: —can the House assume that one reason—although not the only one—for your decision, Mr. Speaker, is that moneys spent by local authorities are subject to the district auditor? Is not another reason that, on many occasions—including one recently—members of many Labour authorities have visited the House to protest against the Tory Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment? Did they not recently come to the House with the lord mayor, in his robes? They spent public funds on that occasion. However, at that time the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was a member of the Labour party, elected on a Labour ticket; he has now deserted to the SDP.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that it has instructed me to give no reason for my decision.

Water Industry (Dispute)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown of negotiations on the water strike over the weekend, the further deterioration of water supplies and the growing danger to public health as a result of pollution and the rising lead levels in water.
During the weekend discussions on the water strike effectively broke down. It has become clear that the trade unions will not accept a decision to go to arbitration, and the employers will not accept that they have not negotiated in good faith.
I ask for the Adjournment of the House to discuss the possibility of setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate the matter. The matter is important because we understand that there is a possibility that the electricity power workers will support the water workers, thereby bringing the lifeblood of this country—water and energy—to an end.
It is a matter for urgent consideration because it was announced this morning that emergency cover might be removed from the southern water area, which has 4 million customers. It is clear that the level of lead in the water supply in some parts of the country is now reaching danger level for developing children and expectant mothers.
On those three counts, showing the specific, important and urgent nature of the issue, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to permit the Adjournment of the Hous to discuss the matter as it affects a great many of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that she would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown of negotiations on the water strike over the weekend, the further deterioration of water supplies and the growing danger to public health as a result of pollution and the rising lead levels in water.
The House will have listened with anxiety to the right hon. Lady. We are all aware that she has drawn our attention to a very serious matter, which is continuing. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, the House has specifically directed me to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reason for my decision.
Despite our anxieties, and the anxious care with which I listened to the right hon. Lady, I must rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

British Alcan (Redundancies)

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision announced this morning by British Alcan to declare redundant 730 employees at the Falkirk rolling mill in my constituency, and a further 600 in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The importance of the matter is obvious because 730 people, together with their families, now see their lives in ruins as a result of that announcement. Added to the 730 directly affected will be another 300 people in my constituency, together with their families—and that in an area which, during the past few years, has suffered thousands upon thousands of job losses.
The urgency of the matter is also obvious. Surely there can be nothing more urgent for the attention of the House than the misery and human wreckage arising from this morning's announcement.
Specifically, the Government—through the Secretary of State for Scotland—have been deeply involved in all the events leading to this industrial and human disaster. The Secretary of State should be made to account to the House for his actions. I understand that the decision was discussed between him, his Under-Secretary and British Alcan during the past few weeks. That makes the Government's involvement all the more intimate.
I shall list briefly three examples of the right hon. Gentleman's involvement. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in December 1981 and January 1982 the right hon. Gentleman accepted the closure of the British Aluminium smelter at Invergordon. He also negotiated a deal with that company that left it with a profit of £21 million of taxpayers' money. To justify that deal to the House, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was satisfied that the deal was necessary to safeguard the remainder of the jobs in British Aluminium in Scotland, and especially in Falkirk. As it happens, that assurance was not worth the paper on which it was written.
In November last year, only three months ago, Alcan announced its bid for the shares of British Aluminium. The Secretary of State met the chief executive of Alcan, Mr. George Russell, to discuss the proposed takeover. Following that meeting, he announced that he was

satisfied that the takeover would be in the best interests of the aluminium industry in Scotland. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the granting of the application would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to tell the House whether he is still satisfied.
Two weeks ago, when the Secretary of State—through his Under-Secretary—pushed through the House the order to derate external plant and machinery in Scotland, I warned him of the devastating job loss effect the order would have on industries, other than the petrochemical industry, in the central region in general and in Falkirk in particular, as a direct result of those other industries being forced by the Secretary of State to pay much higher rates. For British Alcan at Falkirk, the increase was £40,000 a year.
From what I have said, Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt appreciate that the Government, and especially the Secretary of State for Scotland, should be called to account to the House for their part in bringing about the substantial job losses in Falkirk. In those circumstances, I seek the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision announced this morning by British Alcan to declare redundant 730 employees at the Falkirk rolling mill and a further 600 in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The House knows that when applications are made dealing with unemployment—which causes a special anxiety, not only for the House, but for myself—I do not decide whether the matter is to be debated. Other people decide that. I merely decide whether it is of such a nature that it should be debated tonight or tomorrow night.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of the proposal for a draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Lang.]

Redundancy Payments (Fishermen's Claims) (Amendment)

5 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable fishermen employed at sea for not less than seven months in any one year to claim redundancy payments if they are unable to gain employment as fishermen for a period of not less than three months, provided that they cease to be registered at job centres for employment as fishermen; to make this entitlement retrospective for any fishermen who have been employed at sea for not less than four years since 1972; to establish a holding agency for fishermen's and their employers' redundancy contributions; and for connected purposes.
Last week we debated the future of the fishing industry and the tragic decline of the deep water fleet, in particular, the Hull fleet, in which over the past decade the number of vessels has dropped from well over 100 to fewer than 10, and the number of men employed as fishermen from well over 10,000 to about 1,000.
This has been tragic for the industry, and tragic for the economy of Hull and other ports with similar tales to tell. It has been overwhelmingly tragic—indeed, a disaster—for individual fishermen and their families, that men who have sailed and worked for years in a dangerous and difficult calling—more dangerous than the pits—and who have paid their taxes and stamps are now made unemployed and walk the stones without the benefit of any redundancy payments.
Last month, Thomas Hamling—one of the last of the deep sea trawling companies in Hull—went bankrupt. The Hull Daily Mail carried the headline:
Despair of proud men. It is tragic that they have no prospects".
The following Friday evening crew representatives came to my surgery. There were about 40 of them in equal numbers from the Hull constituencies—West, East and Central. They all asked one question: why are there no redundancy payments for us? I had to try to answer that question. I had to tell one man who had put in 35 years continuous sailing for the firm, another who had sailed for 20 years, and many who had sailed for over 10 years that they did not qualify for redundancy payments because they did not have the continuous period of at least two years' service with that company demanded by statute.
To talk in terms of 35 years with one company may seem strange to landsmen. Fishermen sign articles when they join a trawler and sign off when the trip is finished. That is one period of employment. Even if they signed fresh articles the following day, or even the same day on the same ship, or another ship of the same company, or a ship of another company, they would have broken service, according to the statute. Indeed, when it was the custom in the industry for men to work for three voyages and then have one voyage off as a rest period, the trawler owners used to say "Why should we give you rest pay when you can get money on the dole?" Again, the men had broken service and therefore received no redundancy pay.
That is why decasualisation has been the unions' cry for fishermen, that is why it was the centre of a particularly bitter and prolonged strike in Hull a decade ago, why it was central to the argument of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and myself that

redundancy payments should be made after the time of the cod war, and why we had a scheme for decasualisation and redundancy payments—and still would have had it had my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) been able to complete the work that he started in 1979. However, all of that went by the board at the election. As a result of the tragedy of Hamling, the fact that we now have a common fisheries policy, and the need to restructure the fleet and compensate the fishermen who will no longer be employed, this matter has been brought very much into the forefront.
My proposals are as follows, and they are supported by many of my hon. Friends, and all members of Transport and General Workers Union who are sponsored Members of the House but who, because of the rules of the House, cannot have their names appended as proposers of the Bill. My first proposal is that within the general redundancy fund those moneys should be identified that have been contributed by full-time fishermen and their employers since the inception of the fund.
Second, to benefit, a fisherman would show that he was employed as a fisherman, other than self-employed, or as a share fisherman with only an interest in the result of the catch, for a period of not less than seven months in any one year. When one adds those seven months to normal weekends, one would accept that, with normal holiday or leave pay, that makes a year's full employment.
Third, proof of that employment would be established by the fishermen's discharge book. Fourth, if such a fisherman failed to obtain employment within a period of three months, or if he wished to leave the industry and was willing that his name should no longer be registered with a jobcentre as seeking employment as a fisherman, he would be entitled to redundancy payments pro rata to his period in the industry.
Finally—and perhaps the most controversial point—I would seek to compensate those victims of the cod war, particularly in the deep sea ports, who gradually lost their livelihood over the decade. Moneys for their compensation lie within the redundancy fund. It would be a small gesture of thanks and natural justice. I would make this payment retrospective to fishermen employed at sea for not less than four years from 1972. That would give a qualifying period before the cod war and immediately afterwards, and, for those no longer employed at sea, for the period of their employment as fishermen, again on the terms that I described earlier. We now have 495 fishermen on the unemployment register in Hull. There is little opportunity of employment for them. They are what is left, together with the few men at sea, of over 10,000 jobs a decade ago in Humberside. Similar jobs have been lost in Fleetwood and Aberdeen.
I urge the House to accept that it is not too late to change the rules for these men. They are few in number but they nevertheless deserve our close attention. This country owes a debt to those men for their courage and dedication. We owe a debt to the memory of many fishermen who lost their lives in the cruel sea, and to those who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, through political decisions made as a result of the 200-mile limit of the cod war, and as a result of the common fisheries policy. The least that this House can do is to show its concern for such men and enable them to get what they have, in fact, paid for—their redundancy payments.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. Roy Hughes.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS (FISHERMEN'S CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to enable fishermen employed at sea for not less than seven months in any one year to claim redundancy payments if they are unable to gain employment as fishermen for a period of not less than three months, provided that they cease to be registered at job centres for employment as fishermen; to make this entitlement retrospective for any fishermen who have been employed at sea for not less than four years since 1972; to establish a holding agency for fishermen's and their employers' redundancy contributions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 February and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

Orders of the Day — Mobile Homes Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It gives me particular personal pleasure to open the Second Reading debate on the Bill because it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who, in his private Member's capacity, introduced the forerunner of this Bill in 1975. The House will recall that such was the cogency of my right hon. Friend's case for his Bill that he managed to get it through both Houses and on to the statute book with all-party support—a feat which won the admiration of all hon. Members.
I was one of the sponsors of my right hon. Friend's Bill in 1975, as were the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and others. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I can testify to the great sense of relief and delight of mobile home residents when my right hon. Friend's Mobile Homes Bill became law in 1975.
The attitude of the then Government towards my right hon. Friend's Bill was perhaps slightly equivocal. They certainly allowed it parliamentary time, but equally they regarded it as an interim measure, pending the conclusion of the mobile homes review which the then Secretary of State had set in hand. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who spoke for the Government on Second Reading, made it clear that they regarded my right hon. Friend's Bill as an interim measure. He said:
We shall be proceeding with the review concurrently with the survey, but until we have its results we cannot proceed to legislate. Therefore, I envisage that legislation is possible in the next Session, but more likely in the Session after that. At this stage, we are looking for an Act which may have to last for two years, or a little more."—[Official Report, 28 February 1975; Vol. 887, c. 924.]
Although the Labour Government's mobile homes review was published in 1977, when they left office, more than four years after the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of fairly imminent legislation, none had been forthcoming. It was left to the present Government, as in so many other aspects of housing, to come forward with solutions to problems which the Labour Government had reviewed but taken no action upon.
New mobile homes legislation is now imperative, because the agreements under my right hon. Friend's Mobile Homes Act 1975 begin to expire as from October of this year. There is no provision in the 1975 Act for extending those agreements, and new legislation is therefore essential if mobile home residents are to have the continuing protection of a statutory agreement. We are now bringing forward these proposals following extensive consultation, and the Bill has of course already been considered in another place. Before corning to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I have one general point to make. The Government have tried to strike a fair and equitable balance between the interests of the site owners, on the one hand, and those of the residents, on the other.
We believe that the operation of the 1975 Act has shown that, while the basic framework of that Act was sound, there are undoubtedly points at which it is legitimate and necessary to strengthen the statutory rights of the 160,000 or so people living in so-called mobile homes but which are in fact their permanent homes. Equally, we recognise the useful contribution towards meeting housing needs represented by this form of accommodation, and, in the light of the impact of, for example, the Rent Acts on the supply of conventional privately rented accommodation, we believe that it would be quite wrong and contrary to the national housing interest to tilt the balance so heavily against the site owners that this useful form of accommodation starts to contract and ceases to be made available. Our objective is then to strike a fair and sensible balance between those who provide the sites and those who live on them.
The most helpful way that I can outline the detailed effects of the Bill is to compare them with those of the 1975 Act and to highlight the differences between the two. The 1975 Act provided for a system of agreements between site owners and residents. Site owners were obliged to offer statutory agreements to all residents on site at the commencement of the Act. Those who came on to the site subsequently were, however, entitled to the offer of an agreement only if they took the initiative. They had to notify the site owner in writing, before coming on to the site, of their intention to occupy the mobile home as their only or main residence in order to qualify for the offer of an agreement. It is clear that many residents were unaware of this requirement and failed to qualify for the offer of an agreement as a result—effectively, through ignorance.
Thus, the first important improvement which the Bill makes upon the 1975 Act is in the procedures that it sets down for the offer of an agreement. The Bill removes the requirement for the resident to take the initiative in order to get an agreement. It places an absolute duty on site owners to offer statutory agreements to all residents, both those on site at commencement and those who come on to site subsequently. At the same time as he offers an agreement, the site owner must give the resident a copy of a notice which we shall prescribe by regulations. The object of the notice is to help residents to take full advantage of their new rights under the Bill. It will advise them to take legal advice when they receive the offer of the agreement and to read the special booklet explaining the legislation that the Government will produce. The notice will also stress the importance for the resident to act within the time limits laid down in the Bill. This notice was not required by the 1975 Act, and its absence meant that many residents probably failed to get the statutory agreement to which they were entitled.
Those procedures are a significant improvement on the 1975 Act. A survey of mobile home sites in Scotland recently carried out by the Scottish Development Department shows clearly that the main reason for failure to take up agreements under the 1975 Act was a lack of awareness on the part of mobile home residents of their legal rights. The Bill will, I believe, ensure that lack of awareness of legal rights will not be a problem in future. Copies of the SDD report, which was published last week, have been placed in the Library.
The Bill currently allows residents three months in which to decide whether to accept, refuse or challenge the agreement that has been offered to them. In doing so, it follows the precedent set by the 1975 Act. This period was

the subject of a considerable amount of discussion during the Bill's passage in another place and my noble Friend the Minister for Local Government undertook to consider whether the period might be lengthened. We have looked at this issue carefully, and I should like to tell the House that we have decided that we should propose a change to the Bill's provisions to allow six months instead of three for all residents to respond to the offer of an agreement, both those on site at commencement and those who come on to site subsequently. A Government amendment to make that change will be introduced in Committee.
The Bill will strengthen the rights which agreements provide, as well as the procedures for offering them. In particular, it will give residents much better security of tenure than that provided by the 1975 Act. The 1975 Act provided for agreements to last for a minimum of five years, with a single option for a resident to renew an agreement for a further three years if he wished. It is, of course, open to a site owner to offer longer agreements, and many do, but the maximum security of which a resident could be sure under the 1975 Act was eight years. The Bill, on the other hand, will provide for agreements to last indefinitely, subject to the mobile home being maintained in proper condition, provided, of course, that the site owner's interest in the land or planning permission is not time-limited. However, the site owner will have an opportunity every five years to apply to the court, or to an arbitrator agreed between the parties, to terminate the agreement on the ground that the mobile home will not last a further five years. The other procedures for the termination of agreements by residents and site owners are substantially the same in the Bill as they were in the 1975 Act.
The Bill will give residents the right to sell their mobile home on site and to assign the agreement relating to it. A mobile home is worth vastly less without a secure pitch than with one. The Bill will give all mobile home residents with a statutory agreement the right to assign their agreement on site. That is a key protection for residents at the point of sale of their mobile home when they can be most vulnerable, particularly if they have to sell rapidly.
I shall now refer to the provision concerning the commission or discount payable to the site owner when the resident sells his mobile home on site. The Bill currently contains much the same procedures for the sale of a mobile home as the 1975 Act. That is, it requires a resident who wishes to sell his mobile home to offer it first to the site owner at a fair market price less a maximum discount prescribed by the Secretary of State. If the site owner does not take the offer, he will subsequently be entitled to a commission on the price at which the home is said to a third party. The maximum level of commission and discount for agreements under the 1975 Act was set by the Secretary of State in the Labour Government at 15 per cent., and it has not been altered since.
The discount or commission clearly represents a material element for the site owner in meeting the costs of operating the site. I have, however, decided to consult further on the specific issue of the level of discount and commission, as I announced to the House in the answer that I gave on 18 November last year to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). We have issued a further consultation paper on that specific issue. We will carefully consider the response and announce our


proposal for the maximum level of commission for agreements under the Bill at a later stage during the passage of the Bill.
We are also giving further consideration to the important provision that gives the site owner a right of first refusal on the sale. We are considering whether that right of first refusal should be retained. We shall state our conclusion on that point in Committee, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
The Government have made a significant change to the Bill's inheritance provisions. That is important for a large number of residents. Like the 1975 Act, the Bill allows a member of a resident's family who was living with him in the mobile home at the time of his death to inherit the full benefit of the statutory agreement held by the resident. Following a Government amendment in another place, the Bill now goes further than the 1975 Act in cases where no member of the resident's family is living with him when he dies. The Bill will now entitle the person who inherits the mobile home also to inherit the right to sell the home on site and to assign the agreement relating to it. That means that mobile home residents can now be certain of passing on the full value of their investment in their mobile home to their heirs. When so many mobile home residents are elderly and retired—as in my constituency and, I imagine, in most other hon. Members' constituencies—and may be concerned about what they can leave to their children, that is an important and entirely fair financial provision for them.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I should like to raise a small point of detail. This is a United Kingdom Bill that applies to Scotland. In clause 3, which refers to successors in title, the word "enure" appears. That is not a term of art that is known in the law of Scotland. Will the Minister give me the Scottish equivalent?

Mr. Stanley: Between now and the wind-up speech detailed research will be carried out into the origins of that word. We shall consult the English-Scottish dictionary to see whether we can produce the Scottish equivalent.
There is one more important respect in which the Bill is an advance on the 1975 Act. It is that the Bill applies to mobile home sites owned by local authorities as well as those owned privately. That will give an estimated 10,000 additional mobile home residents the statutory rights provided by the Bill.
Those are the main effects of the Bill. It is undoubtedly the most important and beneficial legislation for mobile home residents that has yet been brought before Parliament. I believe that it will provide a viable and practical basis for site owners to go on making sites available, while freeing mobile home residents from the anxieties and sense of insecurity from which many have suffered.
This is another sensible and beneficial piece of housing legislation that the Government have introduced. I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I cannot agree with the Minister when he says that the Bill is yet another sensible piece of Government legislation. It may be

acceptable, but I cannot think of any other sensible legislation that has been brought forward by the Department of the Environment.
The Minister said that protection for mobile home owners has been the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House for a considerable time. The Opposition are glad that the Government have taken the initiative by introducing the Bill to help a small but sometimes vulnerable section of the population which on occasions needs help. The Minister acknowledged that, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced his Bill in 1975, he got some help from the Labour Government. The Minister was churlish about my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who tried to assist the passage of that Bill.
It is interesting to look back to 1974 to see how little has changed since those debates on what became the Mobile Homes Act 1975. The weaknesses and vulnerability of mobile home occupiers remain. The problems of mobile home owners who cannot sell their homes except to the site owner at a large loss, and of those who cannot effectively challenge high rents or poor service and who have to pay well over the odds for electricity, remain. They are all important.
It also remains true that not all site owners are unscrupulous. I am sure that Conservative Members would remind us about that. Some have good relations with their residents but this protective legislaton is by its nature concerned with unreasonable site owners with bad landlords and site operators who have exploited their residents. We shall support the Bill, but we shall take a critical look at it with a view to ensuring that it leaves no loopholes for unscrupulous landlords. We want to ensure that this time we are extending real protection to mobile home owners and that we are not making a token gesture or giving limited protection that will need review in the future.
We should consider why there has been so little change for the better since the 1975 Act. There are two basic reasons. One is the fact that the 1975 Act did not go far enough. As the Minister said, it was seen as a holding operation until the mobile homes review was completed and there could be further legislation. The Minister talked about the delay in that legislation coming forward. That is true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick said at the time, comprehensive legislation would be necessary to achieve all the protection required for mobile home owners. Rent control and security of tenure would need to be provided for. We thought that complex issues of that kind required substantial legislation. It was not something that could be done quickly.
The Bill does not attempt to deal with the difficult problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick pointed out as needing comprehensive legislation. It makes no provision for the control of pitch rents. Some of the provisions that it does contain are inadequate. For example, the Bill makes no move away from the situation in which the occupier has no rights unless he obtains a written agreement. Because of these omissions, we find the Bill disappointing. The measure does not provide the comprehensive answer that we would like to see. We believe that the Government should have implemented the mobile homes review more closely. The Bill should have included legal provision for residents based on existing landlord and tenant legislation and existing fair trading legislation. It should have contained


powers for residents both individually and co-operatively to buy the sites of their homes. That is the longer-term aim towards which we should like to move.
In the shorter term, we want to concentrate on making sure that the Bill is as effective as possible and that it provides the limited protection that the Minister has outlined. This brings me to a second reason why there has been so little progress in dealing with the problem of mobile homes since the Mobile Homes Act 1975. That Act was inadequate in its provisions. Like the present Bill, the Act provided that protection would be afforded only to people who could negotiate a written agreement with the site owner. Only one third of the 70,000-plus mobile home owners have such an agreement. The figure of 70,000 dates from 1975. To judge by the figures for mobile home sales since that time, there must be several thousand more by now. There are, I believe, at least 50,000 mobile home owners who are living at present without an agreement and with no security except the limited protection from summary eviction afforded by the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
The Bill, although in many ways disappointing and similar to the 1975 Act that it replaces, contains one or two important changes. As the Minister has explained, the Bill puts the onus squarely on the site owner to offer a written agreement rather than, as previously, leaving it to the mobile home owner to ask for one. We welcome the change. We are glad that the Government have introduced it. I hope that this is a sign that the Government wish to see a higher proportion of mobile home dwellers with written agreements and having a formal contractual relationship with their site owners.
I hope that hon. Members will be able to consider this matter in more detail in Committee to work out how these agreements can work to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. A proper contractual relationship between the parties is vital, especially when one considers that the issue relates to people's homes. The Bill provides protection for people whose only or main residence is their mobile home.
Modern mobile homes are not mere caravans. Often, they have highly sophisticated facilities. They are semi-permanent structures costing thousands of pounds. For many families, they represent a substantial investment. Many retired mobile home owners regard this form of housing as permanent. It enables them to release some of their capital formerly tied up in conventional property. It is wrong that such an important investment in both human and financial terms should be unprotected. It is therefore crucial that the benefit of a written agreement should be extended to as many mobile home dwellers as possible. I hope that all hon. Members will agree.
I have stated that the Opposition accept the Bill and will not be opposing it this evening. I wish, however, to set out some of the areas where we would like, and hope, to see improvements introduced during the Bill's passage. If the legislation is to be as meaningful as it could be, we shall have to seek amendments in Committee. We hope to get some co-operation from Conservative Members for our suggestions.
Our first concern is with the provisions for the written agreements outlined in clause 1. We acknowledge, accept and welcome the Government's decision to change the procedure so that the mobile home owner does not have to apply for an agreement but the site owner has to offer one. We also welcome the extension of the time limit to

six months announced by the Minister. That is an announcement of great significance and of some benefit to the mobile home owner.
The site owner now has a duty to offer an agreement. What happens if the site owner fails in that duty? The only remedy for the occupier is to take the site owner to court and for the court to make an order. Going to court to get an agreement is an inherently unsatisfactory procedure. It should be used only as a last resort. I should like to see an automatic penalty imposed on site owners who fail to comply with this provision.
Hon. Members will have their own ideas for achieving this aim. It could perhaps be done by delaying annual rent reviews where no agreement had been offered. The courts might be required to supsend possession hearings under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 in cases where no such agreement had been offered by the site owner. Changes are required to strengthen the position. The balance between the mobile home owner and the site owner is not right as it stands.
One means of ensuring that as many occupiers as possible obtain a satisfactory agreement under the Bill is to provide the site owner with a powerful incentive or to penalise him if he does not agree. The Minister should examine the issue again. As it stands, it will cause some concern.
Another problem arises in the case where an offer is not acceptable to the occupier. Clause 2 contains a provision which means that if the occupier makes no response to the site owner's offer of an agreement, the offer will be treated as if it had been withdrawn. An automatic penalty is to operate on the occupier if he fails to play his part under the Bill. That is in severe contrast to the position of the site owner, who has first to be taken to court if he does not fulfil his obligations. There should be some balance to help the tenant. At present, the cards are stacked against him under some of the Bill's conditions. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter again.
As the Bill stands, the occupier who misses his chance of an agreement when first offered it may be deprived of all the protection that the Government suggest should apply in as many circumstances as possible. I hope therefore that the Minister will see fit to accept some of our suggestions and to consider modifications along the lines that I have suggested in relation to written agreements. If improvements can be achieved, this would help to ensure a higher take-up of written agreements. That take-up is fundamental to the success of the Bill. It was one of the weaknesses of the 1975 legislation.
Hon. Members should also be concerned about what is actually contained in the agreements. Even where a written agreement is entered into, the Bill gives only the sketchiest outline of what an agreement should contain. Part II of schedule 1 lays down the matters that the agreement should cover. However, nothing is said about how charges should be arrived at, what maintenance or repair obligations by both parties are appropriate, or what level of services it is reasonable to expect the site owner to provide.
It is true that if either party is dissatisfied with the reasonableness of the proposed agreement, they can take it to court for settlement, but courts should be the last resort only. I strongly support the drawing up of model rules or agreements that could be a basis for mobile home agreements. Not only would such model rules be a basic safeguard against the inclusion in an agreement of unduly


onerous or unreasonable conditions, but they could save much time, trouble, and legal expense for the parties concerned.
Another problem that we shall be discussing later is that of pitch charges and the information that the mobile home owner receives from the site owner. At the moment, site owners get away with charging substantial amounts, and many people find this a difficult problem to deal with. Site owners should be required to keep accurate records of their costs, of the breakdown of their service charges, and of charges for electricity, cleaning, site development and rent. Unless occupiers have access to such information, they cannot judge whether pitch charges are reasonable.
Under the Bill, the occupier can ask the court to intervene if he thinks that the terms of his agreement are unreasonable, but a vital point of his agreement will be the level of the pitch charge and the arrangement for reviewing it. How can the occupier decide whether the pitched charge is reasonable or unreasonable unless he knows how it is made up? How can he decide how his electricity bills are worked out and whether the charges are fair?
It is strange and ironic that under the present arrangements, many electricity boards will not give mobile homes a direct electricity supply because they say that they are not permanent residences. Yet we are debating a Bill that deals specifically with occupiers who use a mobile home as their "only or main residence", so it is obviously a permanent home. This might be one specification that the electricity boards could use when determining whether to give independent supply.
In the many cases where mobile home owners cannot get their own electricity supply they have to rely on site owners who can charge anything that they like up to the legal limit of the maximum resale tariff. That tariff is based on the assumption that the landlord pays normal domestic tariff, but caravan site owners can buy their electicity at a special, lower, site tariff. If the benefits of this lower tariff are not passed to the occupiers, the site owner has the opportunity to make, legally, a considerable profit.
I should like to see mobile home owners, especially those with agreements under the Bill, which surely implies a high degree of permanancy, entitled to a right to their own electricity supply. Failing that, the very least that we can do is enable the mobile home owner to find out just what the site owner is paying, and charging for his electricity and other items.
I hope that hon. Members who are concerned about mobile home owners will consider the private Member's Bill on electricity charges that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is sponsoring. This is a related and important problem, the resolution of which could benefit mobile home owners in the future.
The Minister touched on the resale of homes and the problem of discounts, commissions, and first refusal being allowed to the site owner. There are great difficulties, and much conflict might arise between a mobile home owner and a site owner over the resale of caravans. Many of the difficulties have arisen in the past, and most hon. Members who have taken an interest in this will have been aware of the many incidents where conflict and disappointment have arisen between the owner of the site and the owner of the caravan. This has often resulted in disappointment to the caravan owner because he was forced to sell at a low

price. It is strange that the site owner has the first option to buy back the caravan, and I welcome the Minister's statement that he will investigate this further.
Site owners have traditionally received commission when mobile homes change hands. Where the site owner has himself repurchased the mobile home or caravan he has taken a discount, and this has been a traditional way for site owners to increase their income. It is one of the largest causes of discontent among the occupiers of mobile homes. The Minister said that he will look at this more carefully, and we welcome that.
The Minister should consider not only the site owner having first refusal on the purchase of the mobile home in this way, but the related issue of whether the site owner should automatically be entitled to commission. Obviously, if the site owner was acting as an agent in the sale, it would be reasonable for him to take commission in the same way as an estate agent—although I would not defend all that estate agents charge. Why should the site owner receive commission on transactions in which he is not involved?
Given the price of some of these homes, we are not talking about small sums of money. A 15 per cent. discount on a £15,000 or £20,000 mobile home is a substantial sum. This is a major source of worry and discontent among mobile home owners. I should like to see provision for discount and commission eliminated from the Bill. In its place, the agreement could provide for a level of commission chargeable in cases where the site owner acted as agent for the seller.
There are many other issues that we wish to look at in detail—problems such as that of assessing the value of the home that the mobile home owner believes to be in good condition but which the site owner claims is in poor condition and should be either sold or removed from the site, or sold back to the site owner at a knockdown price so that he can resell it at considerable profit to a third party. All those factors need to be studied again.
One matter that the Government must consider before we proceed much further with the Bill is arbitration between the involved parties. It is not satisfactory to have the courts play such an important role. I have mentioned several occasions on which the courts might be involved in disputes under this legislation. The emphasis on the courts is too great, and the Minister should look for a different method of arbitrating in problems and conflicts arising out of legislation between site owners and mobile home owners.
As it stands, the Bill does not go far enough. It does not deal with the most fundamental and most underlying problems with which many mobile home owners are faced. However, we welcome the limited protection that the Government are suggesting for mobile home owners. We look forward to further improvements in Committee because the legislation should be meaningful to the tens of thousands of mobile home owners who feel themselves vulnerable and are indeed vulnerable to the actions of their site owners. They wish to see their position substantially strengthened.
The Minister said that it was the duty of the Government and the House to try to strike a fair balance between a site owner and the mobile home owner. The Bill will not strike a fair balance. We wish to help the position of the mobile home owner more, because we are talking


about people's homes. That is what we intend to do in Committee, but this evening we shall support the Government on Second Reading.

Mr. Den Dover: It gives me great pleasure to contribute to the Bill's Second Reading because I lived in a mobile home for 18 months and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. In my constituency in Lancashire there are literally hundreds of mobile home dwellers. They have played an active part in reviewing various items of legislation, responding to discussion documents and seeking to participate in consultation. They have put their views firmly to me.
The Minister has indicated that the Government will consider favourably the strengthening measures for which tenants have asked. There is no mention in the Bill of tenants' committees on mobile home sites. I have the benefit of an active committee on one of the sites in Chorley. Provision for such committees need not be made in the Bill but I should like to recommend mobile home dwellers throughout the country to establish tenants' committees.
There has been much talk about the commission that goes to the site owner and whether he is entitled to it. Consideration has been given to the level at which it should be pitched. I ask the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) to remember that if the commission were abolished, weekly rents for mobile home dwellers would have to rise. Is it better to discourage too many sales and to have more longer-term dwellers on the sites or is it better to increase the rents of all the dwellers on the sites? I and many others want to have longer-term dwellers on the sites and not have too many sales.
What income accrues to the site owner? Too often Labour Members forget that those who engage in private enterprise and provide sites for mobile homes are at great risk because of the considerable capital investment and running costs. Labour Members often imagine that they are on to a good thing and making enormous profits but there is much environmental improvement to undertake and a considerable amount of community spirit to engender by providing clubs and shopping facilities. I pay tribute to the proprietors of the sites on which I have lived and to proprietors in my constituency for looking towards improving facilities for site dwellers.
I praise the various provisions that the Government have included in the Bill and those that they are considering. The purpose is to strengthen the powers of mobile home dwellers. I agree with the Opposition that a slight imbalance has been created over the years. The Bill is designed to correct that imbalance. I look forward to the Bill receiving a speedy passage through Committee and subsequent stages on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall not delay the House for long. First, I welcome the Bill. I was honoured to be one of the sponsors of the Bill that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is now Secretary of State for the Environment, introduced in 1975, which found its way on to the statute book as the Mobile Homes Act 1975. The right hon. Gentleman introduced it as a private Member's Bill. I have no doubt that it set the scene for the Bill that is before us. It did not go far enough at the time but many mobile home owners in my constituency

on some of the better run sites have every reason to be grateful to it. They said so at the time and since its enactment they have known their rights and obtained satisfactory agreements.
Many sites too have been much better run since the Bill's enactment. That does not mean that all sites have been properly managed. We all know of unfortunate instances when mobile home owners have been exploited. We have all heard of substantial sums passing to site owners. Some of them have taken extortionate sums out of sites but they have been in the minority. Motile home owners who have know their rights, which were set out in the 1975 Act, have been able to take advantage of them.
When the Bill was introduced in another place it was a weak measure. I am grateful that their Lordships, and presumably the Government, too, have listened to the representations that were made in another place. A number of improvements have been made. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will extend the three-month period for the approval of agreements to six months. That will be a sensible amendment. I understand that he is also considering the question of first refusal of sales. That is an issue that was very much disputed in another place.
Recent experience in the House has not led me to believe that we are likely to make much progress in Committee. Too often these days we argue many issues in Committee and then have to look to another place to get some amendments written into Bills that we have considered. On this occasion it appears that the Government are prepared to consider amendments in Committee. That is a step forward.
I hoped that the Bill might be extended to give greater help to the owner-occupiers of houseboats. I remember that they lobbied us extensively eight or nine years ago, and no doubt they will do so again. They still live with insecurity of tenure. We have been entertained by them and taken out on narrow boats. I was taken to Marylebone and during the trip they pointed out how insecure they were. I should have liked the Bill to be more comprehensive and to take houseboat owners into account. However, we must be grateful for what we have.
There are a few areas in which I would like to see further action, and the hon. Member for Bolton. West (Mrs. Taylor) has referred to most of them. I should like to see many more problems resolved by arbitration instead of going through the courts. We all know that the courts are heavily overloaded and that the court process is likely to take a considerable time when there are differences over agreements and rents. To use the courts to resolve these issues is rather like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Surely they could be resolved by arbitration. I have read the reports of some of the debates in another place and it appears that at present site owners can nominate their own arbitrators. That cannot be right. In the old days the appointment of an arbitrator used to be left to the president of the Law Society or the president of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. If there is disagreement about who should act as an arbitrator, that is surely one way of resolving it. It would be much simpler if disputes over agreements and rents could be dealt with through arbitration, provided that the arbitrator were seen positively to be independent.
I should like to see a much greater role for rent officers. The rent officer has a considerable amount of knowledge in his area and I do not see why we should not make greater


use of him. I should like to see greater clarification of the site owner's role and of his responsibility in providing an agreement. It may be that what the Government have announced in introducing the Bill will fulfil that need. I suggest that there is probably a need for the Secretary of State to prescribe the model form of agreement. That was the subject of an amendment in another place but it did not seem to meet with much favour. I hope that further consideration will be given to that.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West has taken up the argument of removing site owners' pre-emptive rights and discounts, which often extend to considerable sums. A case was quoted to me and it appeared that the site owner had made about £6,000 from sale, resale and sale again of a mobile home. I want to give the maximum possible freedom to the owners of mobile homes to dispose of their properties as they wish provided that the homes have been kept in good order.
Finally, I am disappointed that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. No doubt there is a good reason for this, but why has Northern Ireland been excluded? Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland would often like to be included in the legislation that passes through the House. I hope that the Minister will provide the answer when he replies. I apologise in advance if I am not able to be in my place when the Minister replies. I have to be somewhere else at 7.45 pm. Naturally, I do not know how long the debate will continue.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. Much pressure was put on the Labour Administration to extend the 1975 Act after consultation had taken place. They had four years to do that but they failed to bring a Bill forward. Although the Government will have been in office for four years at the end of the month, they have at least introduced the Bill. They should be congratulated on that. I hope that it will be strengthened before it leaves Committee.

6 pm

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing forward the Bill. It is a timely Bill and I was greatly encouraged to see it in the Queen's Speech.
I became involved in the matter of mobile home occupiers—mobile home owners, as they are normally known—through my constituency interest at Beech Park, Wigginton near Tring, and at Scallerdells Lane, near Kings Langley. The problems suffered by mobile home owners in those sites highlighted the need for improvement of the Mobile Homes Act 1975. That is not to say that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State was not to be congratulated on introducing the 1975 Act. It certainly set the basis for an improvement but it has also shown that it needs considerable amendment at this stage.
I do not wish to speak for too long but I wish to make a number of points, which I hope will find favour with my right hon. and hon. Friends about how the Bill might be improved, not so much in fundamental principle as in format and mechanics, so as to achieve the results that my right hon. and hon. Friends seek.
The basis of the 1975 Act and, indeed, of the Bill is that there should be an agreement between the site operator and

owner and the mobile home owner. Unless there is an agreement in any particular case, the whole framework virtually falls to the ground. In those circumstances, where it is vital that everyone has the protection that the agreement is intended to provide, there would be enormous advantage in slightly recasting the provisions which are currently contained in the schedule to the Bill to provide for model terms that should apply to every agreement.
There should be model terms which, first, should be incorporated in any agreement. Secondly, any term inserted by the site owner or the mobile home owner which was inconsistent with those terms should be invalidated. In other words, one should not be entitled to include terms that are inconsistent with those that Parliament has provided.
Thirdly, in the event that there should be no formal agreement, for one reason or another, the relationship between the site operator and the mobile home owner should nevertheless be subject, by statutory implication, to the model terms that Parliament has provided. A slight recasting of the Bill, more a matter of mechanics than substance, would achieve what my hon. Friends are seeking—that there should be an agreement that governs the relationship in every case.
The fact that the initiative is taken away from the mobile home owner and given to the site operator is an advance. It will lead to an increase in the number of agreements entered into. Such is the worry, anxiety and puzzlement with which any form of agreement is seen by a mobile home owner or potential owner, nothwithstanding that they are advised strongly by letter in a form to be prescribed by the Act, that a great many of them will allow the weeks and months to pass, and at the end of three months—or, as I am glad to hear, six months—no agreement will have been entered into and the objects of the Act will be frustrated. I am sure that that will be the case. From the individual examples that I have seen it was plain that the site operator had received an application from a mobile home owner, when he originally bought his home, and had put forward an agreement but the agreement—I have seen them in people's homes—had lain in a file, partly mulled over, partly not understood and never entered into.
Since the Bill clearly sets out what should be the ingredients of every agreement and since it is the will of Parliament that every agreement should contain those matters, I can see no objection in principle to ensuring that it applies through the operation of model terms. Those models terms would not prevent extra terms appropriate to the particular site being added. Indeed, it may be desirable in many instances that they should be added. The model terms should be simple and straightforward and should be fair, both to the site operator and to the mobile home owner. Broadly speaking, what is provided in the Bill is fair but to a layman and, indeed, to a lawyer like myself—who realises that three different Acts have to be correlated—it is not particularly simple.
I know from my involvement with the Mobile Homes Residents Association of England, which has recently been reformed, that many solicitors all over the country get lost in the present legislation. I honestly do not blame them. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who raised an obscure and learned point, is in a minority in his profession in being able to find his way,


if indeed he can, through the difficulties. It is a real problem and I know from personal experience that mobile home owners have not been able to overcome it.
I agree with the observation that we do not want mobile home owners to have to keep going to the courts to get matters sorted out. In practice, it will not happen. One does not have to be of the economic standing of most of the people who live in those small houses—which is what they are—to be frightened by the cost and the uncertainties of litigation. The average owner will practically never go to the court. Only on a site where there is a rigorous secretary of a tenants' association may one occasionally find that the matter is taken to court and properly decided. In other cases it will not work. But if we have model terms which show for every agreement what we in the House wish to apply, it will apply and will be fair both to site operator and to mobile home owner.
What should be the ingredients of those model terms? I have given the matter a certain amount of thought, and I very much hope that the parliamentary draftsman will be asked to consider putting into model terms form the present ingredients of the Bill and then to mull it over with the Ministers in charge of the Bill. I know that the National Consumer Council, with which I have been in close touch, has asked an experienced solicitor to draw up a draft. I have seen the draft and in due course I hope to discuss it with the Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who will be in charge of the Bill in Committee, and with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is not beyond the wit of man and the draftsman to draw up fair and simple clauses that provide everything that we would wish to provide.
We wish to provide security of tenure for the mobile home owner provided that he keeps his mobile home in good condition and that it does not damage the site. He must keep it in good and reasonable repair.
We wish to provide that the mobile home owner should have the right to assign or to sell either on death or when he wishes to leave the site, and the Bill makes that provision.
We wish to provide that the mobile home owner should have "quiet enjoyment". That legal phrase, which is supposed to cover a multitude of sins, is an important protection against harassment by the minority—I emphasise that it is a minority—of unscrupulous site operators.
We also wish to provide that the occupier should keep the home in good condition and repair, abide by the reasonable regulations laid down by the site owner and give reasonable notice before quitting the site. It may be unusual for a person with an investment to quit the site, but not every mobile home represents such an investment. We also wish to provide that the owner-occupier should do other sensible things such as insuring against fire.
The model terms need not be lengthy or complicated. If they are either incorporated into any agreement or deemed to apply, I believe that we shall overcome almost at one fell swoop the vast majority of practical problems that have arisen in the operation of sites in this country.
I suggested this principle when I raised the subject of mobile homes last summer, both on the Adjournment and on a ten-minute Bill, and I am greatly encouraged by the introduction of the Bill today. I wish to deal briefly with one or two more controversial matters.
I do not believe that it would be wise to institute a system of rent control in relation to mobile home sites, although I realise that Labour Members believe that it would be an advantage. The growth of mobile home sites throughout the country has been of great benefit to hundreds of thousands of people. If we can produce fair and enforceable terms to overcome the main disadvantages and abuses, most of which relate to the ability to sell on to another person and the level of commission payable, I believe that there will be no need for rent control.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that the rent officer may have a part to play, but on balance I have decided against that course.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that rents paid by mobile home owners can be registered with the rent officer? It would not be an innovation as it already exists under the present law.

Mr. Lyell: I was not aware of that. If that is so, it may operate in a beneficial way. I shall check up and take advice from those more learned in these matters than I am.

Mr. John Heddle: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the model terms, with which I wholeheartedly agree, were incorporated in a standard form of site lease or tenancy agreement they would place obligations, responsibilities and duties on the site owner as well as on the mobile home owner and, ipso facto, regulate the fairness of the rent charged by the site owner for the pitch?

Mr. Lyell: The Bill at present provides in effect that rents may be changed only once a year, which is very sensible. I had not seen it as providing a mechanism to govern the level of rents. That is the kind of rent control that I would not support.
Since I received some publicity as a result of my interest in this, I have received letters from mobile home owners. Many complain at increases in rent of, say, £1 per year from perhaps £4 or £5 in 1977 or 1978 to £8 or £9 now. Given the rate of inflation during that period, such increases do not seem unreasonable, although some may regard them as a hardship. I concede, however, that in some cases people are being ripped off in terms of the site rent, although I believe that such cases are few and far between and are not the primary problem with which we have to deal.
On the 15 per cent. commission, I believe that in many respects site operators are justified in asking for some commission, although I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that the removal of commission might affect site rents and I commend that point to the House. I confess that I am doubtful whether the commission should be as high as 15 per cent. As mobile homes are now worth between £10,000 and £20,000 each, a 15 per cent. commission could mean £3,000 every time the mobile home changes hands. Indeed, I have heard of cases in which some less scrupulous site operators have chivvied and harassed people to move so as to increase the frequency of commission. That aspect should certainly be examined in relation to the consultation document. Perhaps the 15 per cent. should be reduced or a limit imposed on the number of times that it can be claimed in a particular period. Those are just thoughts, however.
My basic point is that we should make utterly sure that the basic terms required are included in model terms that apply to every agreement. I very much hope that the Government will consider that favourably in due course. In all other respects, I support the Bill and commend it to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: This has been a slightly unusual day in that this is the second time that I have given tongue on the Floor of the House to be answered by an admirable but unfamiliar Minister responsible for strange and arcane matters south of the border. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) gallantly in his place. I even noticed him reading the Bill with an air of puzzled excitement. Clearly, he was determined to discover what it was about with the thoroughness that we have all come to respect and admire in him.
The Opposition give a qualified welcome to the Bill. In Scotland, these matters are certainly important, although they are not the greatest irritation to caravan dwellers there. That doubtful prize undoubtedly goes to the rating of mobile homes. Even in my constituency, in which there is probably not a great deal of caravan ownership, I have received a veritable flood of letters about that, although I have not heard a cheep out of anyone on the important subjects dealt with in the Bill. Most hon. Members recognise, however, that the subjects on which they receive letters do not constitute an exhaustive list of the important matters at stake and I accept that the Bill deserves proper consideration.
In passing, I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the public concern about rating. Although I realise that there are considerable problems, I am not trying to harry the Scottish Office on this. There is no doubt that the Rating (Caravan Sites) Act 1976 has built significant anomalies into valuation practice in Scotland, but I appreciate that piecemeal reform and nibbling pieces out of the rating base of local government in Scotland when there is certainly more than one anomaly in the system is not necessarily the best way to make progress. Nevertheless, I hope that momentum will not be lost in considering the problem and that the Minister will bear it very much in mind.
My welcome for the Bill is qualified, because I do not want to be carried away with enthusiasm. Before the House is a Government housing Bill that is not essentially obnoxious. Indeed, it is a modest and useful reform.
Seldom have Scottish Members been able to say anything enthusiastic about a Bill put forward by the Government. The House is debating not so much the principle of the Bill as giving advance notice of some points that may come up in Committee, for which I have qualified myself by taking part in the debate.
The Bill has a very short long title. That is a little disappointing, and it may restrict some hon. Members when drafting new clauses and amendments.
The Bill is important for Scotland. The Government are to be congratulated on placing in the Library a document from the housing research unit, which refers to a detailed survey on mobile homes carried out in Scotland last summer. I was surprised by the small number of mobile

homes in Scotland. One or two well-informed bodies had given me higher estimates than the total of 3,810 shown in the survey. It is interesting to note that the largest number of residential caravans are in the Grampian region. That area has 1,099 caravans out of the comparatively modest total of 3,810. I presume that that relates directly to the impact of oil and the inability of the Government's financial provisions to allow local authorities to keep up with demand for housing.
The 3,810 mobile homes are on 140 licensed sites. A total of 58 per cent. of mobile homes are owner-occupied. Those people will fall within the ambit of the Bill. A further 792 caravans—21 per cent.—are rented. Of the remaining 810–21 per cent.—the tenure is unknown. The survey had to work with a fairly broad brush. The housing research unit's best estimate of the number of caravans in Scotland that will be covered by the Bill is 2,800. That is considerably lower than I thought was likely when I first turned my attention to this subject.
People in this category do not at present have the statutory safeguards with which we have become very familiar under the Rent Acts and the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. I hasten to say that some parts of the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act were borrowed by the Government and I accept that they have been useful.
It is important to consider ways of strengthening the protection for owner-occupiers of mobile homes. The Bill goes a small way down that road. I do not wish to labour all the points in the Bill. If there is a general welcome for the Bill, we should leave it at that. I welcome the fact that there will be a statutory duty on the owner of a site to offer an agreement to the owner of a mobile home. That is very important.
What is extraordinary is the low take-up under the Mobile Homes Act 1975. Some 47 per cent. of tenants did not know that they had the right to an agreement. Only 29 per cent. had an agreement under the terms of the Act. The balance had either asked for an agreement but had not received one, or knew about the provision but had not bothered to ask. It is startling that 47 per cent. of mobile home owners are unaware of their legal rights, but that is understandable and inevitable when one thinks about it. The statutory duty upon the site owner to offer an agreement is a shift of onus in the right direction and it should have no difficulty in reaching the statute book.
I welcome the decision to sweep away the five-year period, plus the three additional years for which the agreement may run. We must have a permanent, open-ended agreement. That would give an element of security of tenure and be especially sensible.
The Minister announced that the period within which a tenant can consider and accept an agreement is to be increased from three months to six months. That is sensible. The Minister will remember that in his consultative document, which was produced last year, he said that a three-month period was too short to take proper legal advice and that six months would be more sensible. I am glad that he has listened to his own argument and come forward with a small, sensible change to the Bill.
I endorse the worries expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), and by other hon. Members, because this is a non-party issue. Clause 2 is a little disappointing. It presupposes that when occupiers wish to enforce their rights under an agreement they must go to the sheriff court in Scotland. If an agreement that is totally unacceptable is offered, the


sheriff court must do the work necessary to reach an agreement. This will be a cumbersome process. As civil legal aid is a contributory service, it will be expensive for anyone thinking about litigation. I hope that we can consider that matter in Committee. I hope also that some sensible changes will be made, and that we shall examine the "enure" problem.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate my saying that it is not always satisfactory to have United Kingdom Bills in this form. There must be a lot of double drafting on matters not of principle but of terminology and nomenclature, whereby "quiet enjoyment" becomes "undisturbed possession". The Scottish arbiter has to run in tandem with the English arbitrator. By going through the Bill at a series of levels it is possible to find an unsatisfactory position.
Another important matter that has cropped up in the debate relates to the commission or discount that is charged by the site owner when a mobile home changes hands. Not surprisingly, the housing research unit survey discovered that the sole cause of dissatisfaction with the selling procedure is the discount or commission. Of the operators canvassed, all but a handful claimed that they did not charge any discount, but all of them charged a commission at a maximum of 15 per cent. Defensive jockeying was necessary when filling up the questionnaire which was part of the survey.
I shall not canvass the arguments at great length because we shall almost certainly come to them in Committee. However, it would be interesting to know how the Minister views the discount or commission provision. Perhaps he will say something about it in reply. The discount, or a tranche taken off the selling price, could be justified only on the basis that one was trying to give to the site owner and operator a share in the capital appreciation of his part of the mobile home. If that is what we are trying to do, we should consider it in that light and argue it on that basis.
Commission is very different. The obvious analogy is the estate agent. If the site operator introduces the purchaser or agent to sell on behalf of the present occupier, he might well be entitled to a discount. In Scotland—I say this rather nervously in case I am told that it is different south of the border—the discount from an estate agent would be 1·5 per cent., which is very different from 15 per cent. I see the payment to the operator as falling into the payment for service category, so there is a case for saying that it should be paid only if the service was offered or if the sale was conducted through the operator. A commission similar to that of an estate agent would be much more appropriate. Of course, that is open to the argument that it may have an impact on site rents. We must consider the matter carefully in Committee. The argument is not black and white and we should not jump to conclusions. We should consider a much lower commission. I hope that the Minister will come forward with some interesting arguments and information.
A point to which I shall revert in Committee—if I am a member of the Committee—or on Report comes under the heading "Termination by court" in schedule 1, paragraph 6. I see the argument that there must be an arrangement whereby there should be termination if a dilapidated mobile home has a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site. I do not know whether going to court is the best way of doing that, although it might be seen as a safeguard. However, it worries me that the agreement

can also be terminated if the state of the mobile home is likely to have such a detrimental effect before the end of the relevant period. That period is the five years that appeared in the original 1975 legislation and has been smuggled into schedule 1.
There are areas of considerable difficulty. Sales must be examined. I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West that many site owners have happy relationships with those who own the mobile homes and live on the sites. But even someone who is only occasionally in touch with the realities of those sites, as I am, is aware of stories about people who believe that they are selling through the site operator. The site operator finds a potential purchaser and persuades him to bypass the second-hand mobile home that is for sale and to take a pitch on the site with a new caravan on the grounds that it is a much better buy. There are abuses and we must try hard to correct them.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said about the impact of the Rent Acts. My understanding is that the Rent Acts can apply to mobile homes, although presumably not the mobile homes that are covered by this Bill, because it refers to owner-occupiers. Perhaps we should consider the substantial group of tenants on sites in Scotland who do not have much protection except for the Rent Acts. However, those Acts apply only in some areas because of differences in practice and approach. Those tenants are thrown back on the inadequate protection of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
In some areas in Scotland one can register a rented mobile home such as we have been discussing, but in other areas the rent officer demands that the mobile home is not only plumbed into standing services and sited on a hard surface, but bricked in. A little wall of bricks must cover the gap underneath the mobile home. That is unsatisfactory. We should have a uniform approach and we should protect tenants. I do not draw inferences about the economic position, but perhaps the tenants are more in need of protection than almost any other category.
That is a small selection of points that everyone will wish to canvass in due course. The Bill is a little timid, but I do not wish to sound grudging or ungrateful for this measure, which is better than any that has come from the Government's stable for some time. With that rather back-handed praise, I wish the Bill well in the hope that we can improve it considerably in the later stages.

Mr. David Mudd: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. He has expressed the consensus of hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the tenants' interests in this legislation. What I shall say now will probably cause alarm bells to ring in many minds. I am parliamentary consultant to the National Federation of Site Operators, which also welcomes the legislation. That must cause many tenants to wonder what the catch is. The federation wishes to pay tribute to the terrific steps that the Department of the Environment has taken in preparing, consulting upon and framing this legislation, as a consequence of which it represents the consensus.
I have four specific observations about the Bill. One of them might strike a chord in your recollection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Minister introduced the Second


Reading of the Bill he said that it refers not to mobile homes but to permanent homes. The House will recall that those homes are as immobile in 1983 as they were in 1975, when we first got to grips with the subject. The majority of dwellings are completely immobile. As the "Immobile Homes Bill" is hardly likely to inspire enthusiasm or delight, I shall argue later in the proceedings that it would be more appropriate to replace the words "mobile homes" by "park homes", partly because the majority of operators now call themselves park operators as a consequence of the improved conditions that they provide. Secondly, tenants increasingly refer to themselves as living in parks rather than on caravan sites. Thirdly, the homes, whether they are fitted with wheels or are chalets, are so permanently linked to their pitches as to be parked and not mobile. The introduction of the designation "park homes" cannot undermine the spirit of the legislation, but it can increase the dignity of residents and the pride of operators in the parks for which they are responsible.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the indefinite nature of the agreements. Under the Bill, as long as the occupier behaves himself, the agreement becomes open-ended. That may be good for the tenant, but I wish the House to consider the inhibiting effect that it will have on the park operator. The circumstances that affect the stability of a park can change. Building developments such as the construction of a road extension, a sewage works and the arrival of a friendly new international airport at the bottom of a site can take place. All that could create reasons why, to safeguard his own legal obligations to his tenants, the park operator should have powers, if necessary, to repossess if extenuating circumstances present themselves.
Park operators are also worried about the gift element of clause 2. The owner of a park has no objection to a home owner giving his dwelling to the person of his choice, but there must be some safeguard against that freedom being extended to the gift of an assignment as well as the gift of the fabric. The case might be hypothetical, but it is not unknown in the caravan parks operation business for the owner of a mobile home to exchange his home for a car and claim that as there has been no financial transaction a gift has taken place. That is on the ground that no money has changed hands.
If park operators are to accept liabilities under the new Act—I am sure that the majority of them will—they will still have some means of ensuring that the gift does not of itself open the door to those people who, once admitted to the park, will not act in the best traditions of good neighbourliness. They might cause disruption, annoyance and distress to existing tenants.
The main worry lies with assessing the vexed problem of what should be the true rate of commission that falls to the park operator on the sale of a park home. Paradoxically, commission is as important to other residents as it is to the operator. A recent survey suggests that about one half of an operator's revenue comes from commission, which currently averages 15 per cent. of the sale price. It is used in two ways. First, it is a lump sum receipt that can be used in general park improvements as opposed to pitch rent, which is committed to the costs of labour-intensive activities of park management. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and my hon.

and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) said, there is a correlation between commission and pitch fees.
The stark relationship is that if commission was not payable, pitch fees would almost certainly have to be doubled to provide an equivalent revenue. Moreover, as many newcomers to parks are families on low incomes or elderly folk on fixed incomes, the necessary high pitch fees to replace the reduced revenue from commission could lead to a dramatic inequality between the incoming resident who pays highly from scant resources and the outgoing resident who would take an even greater share of the enhanced value of his dwelling with him. That is why the national federation of site operators suggests that the carefully balanced and tried 15 per cent. should be the proportion that is eventually nominated by the Secretary of State.
So that there should be no question of that developing into a state of "us versus them", with park operators on one side and tenants on the other, I shall quote from just one of the many letters that I have received recently. It was written by the tenant of a park. It closely identifies the way in which operators' interests are the tenants' interests and the tenants' interests are the operators' liabilities. After saying that the operator, Mr. Hill, intended to use his accumulated commission to resurface roads, improve lighting on roads and recreational areas, to provide extra car parking and garages and to extend the landscaping, the letter continues:
Work on these improvements was to have started this month, but Mr. Hill said his company has postponed the work awaiting clarification of the new Act which Mr. Hill states could be biased detrimental to Park owners. Should this be so, it would mean the deterioration of these parks, residents homes would quickly devalue and the Parks could become 'shanty towns'.
I therefore trust, Sir, that this new Act planned to give residents of mobile homes more security, also makes allowances for the standards and upgrading of these parks, not only for the benefit of the residents but also to make them an attractive and acceptable part of the district in which they are situated.
The Bill provides that balance between the rights of the tenants and the necessary finances of the operators so that they can maintain the standards, dignity, cleanliness and happiness of the majority of our caravan parks.

Mr. John Maxton: I do not wish to join the defence that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) has put forward for caravan site owners. I shall continue with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the Bill containing essentially Scottish legislation.
It is time that the House made up its mind about Scottish and English legislation. If there is to be a difference, we should carry it through in everything. We should not have Bills that relate entirely to Scotland and others that relate to England which Scottish Members find too late, not having examined the Bills, also apply to Scotland.
It is not as if the Scottish Office is overloading the legislative programme. There have been only two Scottish Bills. Both of them are non-controversial. The first has already passed through this House and the other has passed through the other place. It would not have been impossible to include another small Bill, such as this, to make it a purely Scottish measure. Scottish Members of Parliament would then have an opportunity to discuss points that relate to their constituencies.
The best way to ensure that Scottish legislation is dealt with separately is to have a Scottish assembly in Edinburgh. English Ministers would not then have worry about differences in terminology.

Mr. Allen McKay: We should miss my hon. Friend here.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend would not miss me as I would still be here. Other legislators would be involved with these problems in Edinburgh. Perhaps I would join them. Nevertheless, some of us would still cause problems here on the larger national issues.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, I cautiously welcome the Bill. It is an improvement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mrs. McElhone) whispered in my ear, this must be election year as today is the second day running on which we have cautiously welcomed what the Government are doing. That has been unusual in the past three and a half years. Nevertheless, the Bill does not go far enough. There will still be many occupiers of mobile homes who do not have the type of protection that they should have. We are dealing with some of the people who find housing provision most difficult.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said, and as the figures for Scotland show, mobile home owner-occupiers and tenants are not, in the main, those who are retired. Those above retiring age represent the smallest percentage in the housing sector. The largest percentage comprises small families with children under five. For many of these people the mobile home is their first home and it is one that they are keen to vacate. The survey carried out by the Scottish Office revealed that one third of all those occupying mobile homes in Scotland are on waiting lists with either local authorities or housing associations. In other words, one third of them wish to move from their mobile homes to permanent houses somewhere else.
The second point to be made is that, unlike houses, mobile homes do not go on appreciating in value, except for the first few years. Unless there is some structural damage, houses go on appreciating for 60 or 70 years—even 500 or 600 years. Mobile homes are not like that. They begin to depreciate in value after a comparitively short time. When people sell them, therefore, they are often unable to recover the money that they paid, let alone pay a 15 per cent. charge or discount to the site owner as well. We ought therefore to look very carefully at the whole question of surcharge and discount to ensure that we do not allow site owners to milk those who are among the poorest of owner-occupiers or tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden pointed out that Scotland has only a small number of mobile home owner-occupiers and tenants. I, like him, was rather surprised. To some extent it may be accounted for by the fact that some people are not on licensed sites and the figure in this survey covers only those which are licensed. It shows that large numbers of caravan sites are in rural areas, normally Conservative or so-called independent-controlled local authorities, where the provision of proper council housing is not up to the standard and quantity provided by Labour-controlled urban areas. That is one of the reasons for the number of people in these homes.
I want to finish by referring to a point that the Bill does not cover. Presumably amendments will not be possible,

because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, the long title is very short. I refer to those who rent mobile homes. They are probably among the most disadvantaged occupiers of any. They often pay very large rents for very poor accommodation, frequently with extras on top. The survey shows that in Scotland one third of the homes on licensed sites are occupied by those who rent rather then own them. Such people are not protected under existing housing legislation—certainly not in Scotland—unless very strict terms are applied. That means that often they have great difficulty in applying to a local authority for rent rebates. If the court has not laid down a fixed rent, it is difficult to get a rent rebate from the local authority. The Government should look very carefully at this group of people—not large but certainly significant—who need the protection of the law.
We give a cautious welcome to this legislation. It could go a lot further. I hope that in Committee it will be pushed much further.

Mr. John Heddle: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill and to welcome it in this House. It is a necessary measure which will go a long way to improve the situation which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for the Environment saw prior to 1975. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by mobile home owners or park home owners—I am rather attracted by that term put forward earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). It is a well-intentioned Bill and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward at this stage in the Session.
There is no doubt at all that mobile home owners are a significant and self-sufficient section of the home-owning community, 150,000 of them in 70,000 mobile homes. Some are young married couples, potential first-time buyers, nurturing hopes perhaps of a more permanent home, with, at the other end of the scale, elderly couples fostering memories in the security of their own home but in the insecurity of their own garden.
Orchard Glade, Tamworth or Bluebell Woods, Lichfield conjure up visions of heaven on earth but because of a few site sharks, devils in the deep blue sea of home ownership, that heaven on earth can for some become hell. That is why I wholeheartedly support the views put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) whose ten-minute Bill I had the pleasure of sponsoring.
It is essential, if this Bill is given a Second Reading this evening and proceeds to Committee, that we direct our attention to embodying in the Bill model clauses to ensure that both ground landlord and owner-occupier achieve some measure of protection, the one for the benefit of the other. There seems to be a wide measure of agreement across the House—and this is welcome—that mobile home owners deserve this form of statutory protection. The Englishman's home and, of course, the Scotman's home, whether owned outright, mortgaged, rented or mobile, should be his castle.

Mr. Eric Ogden: What about the Welsh?

Mr. Heddle: I would be delighted to introduce the Welsh to this debate but we have not had the benefit of any


contribution from a Welsh Member nor, so far, have we received a contribution from a Member of the Social Democratic party. Perhaps that pleasure awaits us.
The ability to remain in one's home, provided all financial and other obligations are met, is of fundamental importance to, and a fundamental right of, every British citizen. This security is available to owner—occupiers, to those living in leasehold property and to public and private tenants. Here it would perhaps be appropriate to remind the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), who earlier this afternoon suggested that this was the first worthwhile housing measure introduced by the Government since it came into office, that one of the other significant measures that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction introduced very early in his tenure of office was on the question of the tenants' charter. The hon. Lady is perhaps likely to remind the House that the concept of the tenants' charter was not exactly new to this Government and that it had been on the stocks, just as the mobile homes provisions had been on the stocks, during the lifetime of the previous Labour Government; but, like some parliamentary Neros, perhaps they fiddled for far too long.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne rightly reminded the House, mobile homes are not really mobile at all. In fact, it was Lord Denning who said—the House will probably recall the case of Taylor v.
Calvert—
(The Mobile Homes Act 1975) was no doubt designed to deal with caravans, but it also applies to very substantial dwellings. Indeed, so substantial that the 1975 Act might almost be called the Immobile Homes Act. Whilst some mobile homes are aptly named, others are more like bungalows than caravans.
They are more like castles.
They have no wheels … they are very permanent and there is no intention to move them
either by the site operator or the owner.
It is that aspect upon which I should like to engage the Minister's attention. No other hon. Member has so far referred to one of the measures contained in the Bill which extends the licence period from the five years embodied in the 1975 Act with an option to extend for a further three, to a period which amounts, as I understand the Bill, to perpetuity. That raises the important consideration of the mobile home owner's right—the head leaseholder in a sense—to compensation in the event of the mobile site owner or operator wishing to develop that site for some alternative purpose.
The Minister may have considered the point, and I may have missed it in the Bill's small print. I bring it to the attention of the House because I have this week received a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. V. S. Keen of 19, Biddulph Park, Ironstone Road, Chase Terrace, Nr. Lichfield. It is dated 3 February. With the indulgence of the House, I shall read it:
Dear Mr. Heddle,
I have been allocated an appointment to see you at your surgery at Lichfield on 11th February 1983 and have been asked"—
[Interruption.] For any hon. Member including my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) who would like to make an appointment through my constituency office, we start at five o'clock and continue until such time as the needs, wishes, requirements, hopes and aspirations of my constituents have been met. The letter continues:

I have been asked to write and inform you of the subject matter of this interview.
If only more constituents gave one such advanced and detailed knowledge of the case our burdens would be lightened considerably. The letter further states:
I am appearing on behalf of over seventy mobile home owners on the Biddulph mobile home park, Ironstone Road, Chase Terrace, who have but recently become aware of a proposal to redevelop the area, including the park, into an area of low density executive housing with the loss of the entire park.
We find that information is still vague, but have received indications that our site agreements are to be renewed in February 1983 for a three year period with no option of renewal. Thus, by implication it would appear that we shall be given notice to vacate some time during that period, thus rendering a large number homeless.
The residents of the park purchased their mobile homes on the belief that the site licence was long-term licence, and, understandably, there is a considerable amount of anxiety for their future, for some in the thought that the amount invested in a home will within that period become a worthless investment, for some, on their future prospects.
I would like to ascertain from you the truth of this matter and the exact position in respect of this planned development, and the position of the residents of this park who are now, and will be for some time, living with the threat of eviction, and the loss of their capital assets and"—
most importantly—
their mobile home.
While I welcome the Bill's provisions, which extend from five through to eight years to perpetuity, the mobile home owner's right to "quiet enjoyment"—I think they were the words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead—it nevertheless throws up the anomaly that if a mobile site owner wishes to develop, it is not unreasonable that the mobile home owner should expect some compensation for the termination and diminution of his interest in the site if the Bill becomes law and provides a right in perpetuity.
The Bill was initiated by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and taken up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. I want to add one point about the way in which site rent should be assessed. I agree, on balance, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, that the matter of the site rent should be left, in all fair and reasonable circumstances, to the landlord and tenant—the freeholder and leaseholder—who are the two parties to the transaction.
Although I have tremendous respect for them, I am not certain that rent officers are the right people to determine a fair rent. Provided that the model clauses, which I support wholeheartedly, include a requirement for the site owner to reveal to the mobile home owner the amount of money that the site owner is spending on behalf of the mobile home owner in maintenance and service charges, I believe they will deal with the matter in most reasonable circumstances. The model clauses will protect the mobile home owner where there is an unreasonable site owner.
Mobile homes have a tendency to change hands more than once or twice a year. The site owner then has an opportunity to increase the site rent more than once a year, thereby circumventing one of the other provisions in the Bill. I should like to suggest to the Minister and the parliamentary draftsmen that they explore ways in which a clause can be incorporated in the Bill that would allow the site owner to increase the site rent once a year only. There should be a synchro-site-rent-increase day for mobile home owners once a year.
I welcome the Bill. I am sure that the Government are as anxious as everyone else to see that it is placed upon the statute book as swiftly as possible. It is most certainly a jewel in the Minister's legislative crown, in which there


are already many others. I am certain that, once this measure passes through the House and receives the Royal Assent, it will bring the security and happiness sought by mobile home owners who have bought their homes.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) made an interesting and informed speech. I do not agree with everything that he said, but he gave the House much to think about. I am still reeling—I believe that that is the right word—from the possible implications of the fact that he allocates times and places for his constituents to meet him at his advice bureau. That is not a custom in my part of the world, but it has possibilities—"Come in number one; go out number ten. Your time is up." It is something new that I shall pursue with him outside, because it does not really fall within the provisions of the Mobile Homes Bill.
The hon. Member has encouraged me to take part in the debate because it is not my custom to intervene when I have not heard the preceding two hours. The Minister was late in starting because he had to make a statement. I was detained elsewhere because of a delegation from the Merseyside branch of the Police Federation. They are not people to be kept waiting unnecessarily, as the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) will know, and they had a point of view to express. I therefore missed the opening statements by the Government and the Opposition and the speeches of many hon. Members. It is not often, as our Scottish friends can confirm, that we have housing legislation that covers three parts of the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see how it develops in Committee. I have the Bill before me, but it is only when one has heard the Minister explain how he interprets it and how Opposition Members would want to change it that one can make any detailed comments.
I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) that "mobile home" is a misnomer. Many hon. Members have said that they cannot be moved. I suggest to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne that he be careful about the phrase "park homes". He will have objections from Woburn, Chatsworth and Croxteth because we are not considering that sort of home.
The Government are clearing a few shelves with this proposed legislation to keep things going until something else is decided. If they intend to bring security of tenure for owners in mobile homes nearer to the security of tenure for owner-occupiers in more permanent homes such as terraced and brick housing the House would support it. It is a consensus.
The Government should be under some apprehension because when the Bill reaches Committee, if there is consensus on both sides from people who have more practical knowledge of the subject than I, great improvements to the Bill could be made.
If the intention of the Bill is to provide more opportunity for responsibility to site owners and management—to encourage rather than to discourage by penalties—that should be encouraged. What advice has come from those areas where mobile homes are prevalent, such as the north Wales and Lancashire coastlines?
I doubt whether one home in my constituency would fall within the provisions of the Bill, but there are many

in other parts of the country that would. What advice has been given by local authorities, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office or the British Tourist Authority?
The Bill is a good attempt to provide the necessary legislation. With practical advice from either side of the Committee that considers it—I am not volunteering to be a member of the Committee—the Bill will be better on Third Reading than on Second Reading.

Mr. Timothy Smith: I apologise for my absence during part of the debate, but I was required to attend a Standing Committee and the Government Whip finds my occasional presence reassuring.
I have only one point to raise on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Bill is to apply to local authorities—unlike the Mobile Homes Act 1975. That concerns my local authority, the south Buckinghamshire district council. The Minister did not explain why the Bill was to apply to local authorities. Perhaps he thought that that was self-evident. However, I noticed that in another place Lord Bellwin explained that application in terms of following the precedent set by the tenants' charter in the Housing Act 1980. He said:
It does not seem right to us that mobile home residents on local authority sites should continue to be denied the rights enjoyed by residents on private sites. This Bill will put right that anomaly."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1982; Vol. 436, c. 640.]
I can see the strength of that argument.
I wish briefly to explain the position in south Buckinghamshire. The council has two caravan sites with a total of 126 pitches. It is an integral part of the council's housing strategy to provide for the housing needs of people in the district. The sites are occupied by people who often live there permanently—many are settled itinerants, and others use them as a stepping stone to permanent housing. The pitch has almost a 100 per cent. usage, and the council always has a waiting list, which at present numbers about 40. A prime requirement of the list is that the applicant must be a resident of or be working in the district, or have some firm connections with it.

Mr. Stanley: Will my hon. Friend clarify a fundamental point? Are those mobile homes rented or owned?

Mr. Smith: The sites are rented; the homes are owned by the individual occupiers. That point was misunderstood in some correspondence between the chairman of the housing committee of my district and the Minister's Department. That point may be unusual to south Buckinghamshire, but the Bill cuts across the council's arrangement for its two sites.
I wish to quote a letter from Sir Duncan Lock, the chairman of the housing committee, to the Department:
You will appreciate from what I have said that the Bill is going to stand our organisation on its head and make it impossible to operate purely on the question of the sale of caravans and to whom.
Our scheme has operated very well and fairly for many years, so why do we have to change it. First of all, the Council does not want to go into the second-hand caravan market with all the problems and extra work that is going to be involved.
Although the council rents the pitches, and the people living there own the caravans, when the Bill is enacted the only way in which the council can ensure that when a pitch falls vacant it is filled by someone on the waiting list will be by taking advantage of the provision—which my hon.


Friend has said is under consideration and may be removed—that an occupier who wishes to sell his mobile home is required to offer it first to the local authority as site owner. It would be for the council to decide whether to accept that offer.
My council does not want to be involved in the business of buying secondhand caravans. Sir Duncan continued:
Secondly, if the Council does not want to purchase caravans, the seller can sell it, together with the use of the pitch, to the highest bidder.
Because of that provision, the person holding the tenancy of a pitch can sell it to anybody. Therefore, the council's waiting list would be wholly bypassed. It could not ensure that the pitches were allocated to people on its waiting list, who presumably would be connected with the district. The pitches could be sold to people outside the district.
Sir Duncan continues:
Our waiting list would then be meaningless as any outsider could jump the queue simply by bidding more, i.e. the pitch would go to the highest bidder irrespective of local housing needs and the Council would be providing facilities for anybody who came from anywhere. This is clearly acceptable as our mandate is to provide for local housing need.
That is the essential point about which the council is concerned. We may have misunderstood the Bill's provisions. However, I am concerned that the council feels that, if the Bill is not amended, it will probably decide that it is not worth sinking £500,000 into the improvement of one of its two sites.
I am sure that the Minister will consider those points carefully.

Mr. Ted Graham: It has been an unusually well-informed debate—not a partisan debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said, we do not intend to divide the House.
Various adjectives have been used to describe the Bill. "Cautious" has been used more than once. The Opposition welcome its progress. We are mindful of the need for new initiatives and to review and reflect upon experience. The Bill is the net product of the experience not only of the Department, but of many people.
Reference has been made more than once to the opportunities provided by the 1975 Act. Unfortunately, many people—either by misunderstanding or by lack of information—have not fully used the Act.
We appreciate the problems of framing adequate legislation in this area. We look forward with great interest to the Committee stage. As many hon. Members have said, if they are lucky enough to serve on the Committee, they can help the Minister and those affected by the Bill.
We are grateful to the Minister for giving a comprehensive review and history of the matter, and we have nothing at which to cavil.
The hon. Gentleman said that this was a new imperative for statutory protection and that it would help many people. He gave a figure of about 160,000. I am not certain whether that figure related to mobile homes or to people who live in them. However, it is a sizeable section of the community, and we are as interested as he is to protect those people.
Labour Members recognise the rights and responsibilities of site owners. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) declared his interest in

speaking here on behalf of the National Federation of Site Operators. He expressed and shared the views of that body. He represents a part of the country where that is an important factor, and the Committee will benefit from his experience.
The hon. Gentleman took up a point that was made by the Minister, who said that part of his responsibility was to endeavour to strike a balance between what could be, and often has been, the competing interests of the site owner and the mobile home occupier. The nature of the present situation tilts the balance in favour of the mobile home occupier. The present situation gives the site owner a number of advantages. I do not say that they are unfair advantages, but they are advantages. Sites are not always freely available, so people who want to occupy mobile homes, as a result of the supply and demand situation, are already at a disadvantage.
The site owner often sells the original or replacement mobile home. He is the person who often arranges the finance for purchasing and selling homes. He is a professional who deals with a number of occupiers, and he is familiar with the law, lawyers, arbitrators, and the courts. The hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), in a constructive speech, pointed to the dilemma in which ordinary untutored individuals frequently find themselves. He made a statement which caused some mirth among legal Members on this side of the Chamber, when he said that this legislation caused problems of interpretation and understanding, even among people who are professionally qualified.
The owner-occupiers tend to be vulnerable. They are often elderly or people with young families. Frequently they are not well off. They are already, if not frightened, at least vulnerable. They are also vulnerable in that they have made a substantial capital investment, the average being £7,000. That may not be a large amount compared with the amount that has to be paid for a traditional home, but for someone just starting out, or someone at the end of their days, it can represent the whole nest egg. Therefore, the site owner has some muscle behind him. Owner-occupiers will not want to antagonise him and will be anxious to get the best deal that they can.
We acknowledge the importance of the changes that were made to the Bill in the other place. The Minister told us about some of the improvements. He also pointed out some of the potential improvements that he intends to introduce in Committee. We were particularly glad to hear what he said about the obligation to provide statutory written notice, outlining the rights of the owner and the occupier, and the contractual obligation that will exist thereafter. There is also the intention to write all the documents in simple English. I imagine that it will be King's English, bearing in mind who the present Secretary of State is. That will be welcomed by everyone. We shall also welcome the clear definition of the members of a family, and who will benefit in the event of a will or intestacy.

Mr. Maxton: It is different in Scottish law.

Mr. Graham: Certainly there are differences, and long may those differences exist. We welcome the voice of Scotland in our debates. I know that the Committee stage will be enlivened by the experience and questioning minds of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden


(Mr. Dewar) and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). They have told us that they see ways in which the Bill can be improved.
We are anxious that improvements, some of which were resisted in the other place, should be made. Reference has been made to some of those improvements, and we shall certainly seek to introduce amendments. The excessive rate of commission has been mentioned more than once. The Minister said that this matter needs to be looked at. I take what he said in good faith. We are grateful that he accepts the importance of this matter. He said that at some point in Committee we should be told the results of the consultations, and that perhaps an amendment or statement would be made.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said that if the commission went down, the rent ipso facto would go up. I do not agree that the equation is as precise as that. The tenant or the owner-occupier would be advantaged without the site owner being disadvantaged. It was said that the commission reflected 50 per cent. of the total income. If that 50 per cent. were depressed, the other side of the equation—the rent—would be increased. However, one would need to be satisfied that the total profits or income were fair and reasonable. If they are fair and reasonable, what the hon. Gentleman said is correct.
We should understand the inhibitions from which present owner-occupiers already suffer. I do not say that that is true of the majority. However, the annex to the document which the Department produced in 1977 contained a series of illustrations of sharp practices. The Committee should be reminded of those sharp practices: refusal to allow second-hand homes to be brought on to the site, charging excessive connection charges or premiums to enter the site, attempts to impose a premium on the grant or assignment of a Mobile Homes Act agreement, and attempts to require replacement of mobile homes solely according to age as a condition for the grant of a Mobile Homes Act agreement. We cannot say that matters, such as overcharging for water and electricity, restrictions on the use of gas not bought from the site shop, refusal to allow tradesmen on the site in an attempt to increase likely sales from the site shop, are general, but some people who are attempting to lead a quiet life are caused some distress. We are seeking to legislate to improve that situation.
Esther Rantzen, in the BBC programme "That's Life", revealed several distressing situations. Later, when interviewed, she said:
In spite of the fact that MPs have already tried to stamp out this kind of abuse, unfortunately there remains these loop-holes, so that unscrupulous site owners sometimes regard people who live in mobile homes as a 'crop'. Therefore the rent alone is not sufficient return—they think they should be able to harvest mobile homes as well.
Hon. Members have a responsibility to try to eliminate as many abuses as possible. We give the Bill a timely welcome. In searching for the right adjective, I am trying to be careful not to overdo it. I would not say, as the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) did, that this legislation is a jewel in the crown of the Secretary of State. If so, both the jewel and the crown are getting more tarnished every day.

Mr. Heddle: Crowns contain jewels just as Lichfield goes with Tamworth.

Mr. Graham: If Lichfield goes with Tamworth, we wish the hon. Gentleman well—farewell—on his journey.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an appointment, he will be seen on Saturday morning in his constituency office and will be allocated sufficient time to make his point.
The debate has revealed that the Committee stage of the Bill will not be short of either experience or advice from many people outside the House. We are conscious that we shall be attempting to provide a small sector of the community with some statutory cover. I am mindful of the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that he saw the Bill as a movement towards providing the protection enjoyed by other individuals, whether owner-occupiers or tenants. The hon. Member for Chorley said that tenants' organisations could provide some experience of other spheres which would be useful in Committee. Labour Members look forward to the further improvement of the Bill, despite the fact that it has already been improved in another place.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): This has been a friendly and constructive debate of a high quality, which has lot been unduly prolonged. It is clear that the House, like the Government, believes that mobile homes provide a small but important source of housing and that it is right that we should provide their owners with a statutory framework which works—both in their interests and in the interests of those who run the sites.
Unlike other hon. Members, I have no sites or parks in my constituency. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), I have never lived in a mobile home. However, I visited the caravan show in November last year and I looked at a variety of mobile homes which are available as permanent residences. I was impressed by the comforts and amenities that are available in those modern mobile homes and was delighted to find that nearly all of them were made in the United Kingdom. They seem to be an excellent investment and good value. They are light years removed from the image that some people still have of them. If I have one criticism, it is that I find it difficult to stand up in some of them and impossible to lie down in any of them, but I think that that is my fault rather than the industry's.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked me what the word "enure" was doing in the legislation. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drafted his Bill he managed to restrain himself from including that word in the Bill but the moment the professionals got hold of the legislation it was clearly inevitable that it would appear and enrich the legislation's quality. By the time we reach that clause in Committee I shall be able to explain to the hon. Member why it is in the Bill and what its application might be to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said that little had changed since 1975. If that is the case, it is no thanks to the Labour Government, who for five years did not apply themselves at all to this subject. However, the more she went on the more relieved I was that the Labour Government had not legislated, because the sort of regime that they appeared to advocate—rent controls and progressive restrictions—would have quickly dried up the supply of sites that we want to see. The hon. Lady also developed an intriguing new argument. She said that mobile home owners should have the right to buy their sites. When one puts that against the attitude adopted by Labour Members in Committee, where they have resisted


the emancipation of council tenants and any idea that they should have the right to buy their homes, some interesting questions are raised.
The hon. Lady objected to the agreement being treated as withdrawn if the occupier did not respond. In the light of the change in the Bill that was announced earlier and the fact that the occupier now has six months to make up his mind, it is reasonable that the agreement will be withdrawn if the occupier does nothing. The site owner is entitled to know where he stands in the running of the site and what return he can expect to get from his investment. If no agreement is offered, that is an offence and the owner would have to comply with any court order which then imposed an agreement.
The procedure for disputes is set out in clause 2(5). The commission was fixed at 15 per cent. by the previous Administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) made clear, if one alters the commission it has implications for the overall revenue for the site or the park and the owner might then look to the pitch fees to make up the shortfall.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister deal with those site owners who want to increase their commission out of all proportion to what might be considered reasonable?

Sir George Young: I shall say something about commission in a moment. The greater security that people will have under the legislation might mean that there is a lower turnover of individual caravans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley spoke out in favour of residents' associations, which have a valuable role to play. He was right to add that their existence should not be enshrined in legislation. He mentioned some improvements to sites in his constituency, which also raises the question what would happen if the site owner's income was reduced. Would the sort of improvements that we should all like to see on the parks come about if the commission was entirely eliminated? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was good enough to welcome the legislation and I shall say a word or two about the role of the rent officer later. He envisaged the rent officer as having a higher profile.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) was anxious to see the Bill improved in Committee, and the Government do not have a closed mind on that matter. In particular, he was interested in seeing model terms or leases enshrined in the Bill. We have no objection at all to some non-statutory model clauses or leases but we see enormous problems in trying to enshrine them in legislation for the variety of conditions that exist on all the sites.

Mr. Lyell: I understand what my hon. Friend says about trying to have model terms to cover every eventuality. Is he sympathetic to the idea of a certain number of model terms being included in every agreement, which could be varied as long as they were not overturned by other clauses put in at the will of the site owner and mobile home owner?

Sir George Young: I shall come back to the model clauses in a moment.
We would welcome the non-statutory advice to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. He talked about a

draft model lease that had been produced. We envisage setting out in the schedule the conditions that a model agreement should contain, but not the words of the model agreement. I shall come back to that matter, which we shall want to explore in Committee.
Some hon. Members asked about the role of the rent officer. It was suggested that rents should be registered by him. However, the rent officer cannot register a rent for an owner-occupied mobile home because the owner is paying not a rent but a pitch fee. He can register a rent when the home is rented, provided that the mobile home satisfies the conditions of the Rent Acts. However, they do not apply to owner-occupied mobile homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne was generous enough to voice the support of the federation that he represents. He said some kind words about my Department, which were gratefully received. If people want to call the sites parks, there is nothing in the legislation to inhibit them. I understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings about the anomaly of calling immobile homes mobile homes. He produced the dramatic arithmetic that the commission can account for half the revenue and he said that there would be implications if that source of revenue dried up.
My hon. Friend suggested that the indefinite length of the arrangements might be unfair to the site owners. The Government believe that the provisions in the Bill for the length of agreements are fair. They combine reasonable security for occupiers—it seems to us that an occupier who may pay £20,000 or more for his mobile home is entitled to expect security of tenure—with an ability for the site owner to terminate the agreement in certain circumstances. He can terminate at any time for breach of agreement provided that he has given the occupier the chance to remedy the breach first. He can also apply to the court at any time to terminate on the grounds that the occupier is not living in his mobile home any more. Every five years he can ask the court to terminate on the grounds that the mobile home is or is likely to be having a detrimental affect on the amenity of the site. Five years is the initial period for which agreements under the 1975 Act run. It has an important psychological value for occupiers. They will have the security that provided they fulfil the terms of the agreement, they will be safe for five years. That is not unreasonable.
My hon. Friend also referred to sham gifts. The provisions in schedule 1 which allow a resident to give his mobile home and to assign his agreement to a member of his family are new. It is fair because we consider that a resident should be able to give his mobile home to a member of his family, if he wishes to do so, without paying commission. An example might be after the breakdown of a marriage. Let us suppose that the husband has the statutory agreement and leaves the family home. Without the gift provision, the only way in which he could be sure of being able to transfer the home and the agreement to his wife would be by selling it to her.
There are safeguards for the site owners. First, the gift must be to a member of the resident's family. On Report in another place we introduced a definition of "family" in response to the concern of site owners. Secondly, the site owner has the right to approve the person to whom the mobile home is given, although his approval cannot be withheld unreasonably. That is an adequate safeguard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) can say to his constituent on


Friday that he is entitled to an agreement under the legislation. The fact that the owner wants to redevelop is not grounds under schedule 1 for terminating the agreement. I am sure that my hon. Friend will convey that assurance on Friday.
The Government believe that the balance that the Bill strikes between the interests of occupiers and site owners is just about right. I shall of course examine carefully the points that have been made in today's debate. I shall look into the problems of south Bucks, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), to see whether the fears that have been expressed are justified.
I have no doubt that many other points will be raised in Committee. I do not rule out the possibility of changes in the Bill. We have already made one major change to the provisions dealing with inheritance. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that we would introduce an amendment in Committee to lengthen from three months to six the period in which occupiers could accept, refuse or challenge the agreement that is offered to them. That has been welcomed by most hon. Members who have spoken.
My hon. Friend also said that we would look closely at the procedures that the Bill uses, which follow those of the 1975 Act, for the sale of a mobile home. We are as anxious as anyone that the Bill should give genuine protection for people who live in mobile homes.
One or two hon. Members mentioned the Rent Acts. We are anxious that the Bill should not impose excessive restrictions on site owners. We do not want to fall into the trap contained in the Rent Acts. It will not help mobile home occupiers if we enact legislation the main affect of which on site owners is to make them get out of the business as quickly as they can, and which deters new people from coming in.
Nor is it our intention that the rent officer service should become involved in disputes on mobile home sites. The quality of the service is excellent within its terms of reference. However, the task of a rent officer is to register rents for tenants of houses and fiats within the criteria of the Rent Acts. It is a different task from that of resolving disputes between the owner-occupier of a mobile home and the person to whom he pays a pitch fee for the land on which his home is stationed. It is not necessary or desirable for the rent officer to deal with such matters.
Some hon. Members mentioned arbitration. The Bill lays down its own procedures for settling disputes. If the occupier is dissatisfied with any of the terms of the agreement offered to him, whether it is the term that specifies the initial pitch fee or provides for it to be reviewed, or any other term of the agreement, he can challenge the agreement in court or before an arbitrator. The Bill provides for the choice of arbitrator to be made freely by both parties. That is generally welcomed.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West said that the Bill placed too much emphasis on the courts. However, it allows residents and site owners to agree on an arbitrator instead of going to court. That can often provide a quicker simpler and cheaper means of resolving disputes.
Some hon. Members mentioned loopholes. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) expressed some anxiety about loopholes in the Bill. There was a fear that site owners would seek to avoid the duty to offer agreements under the Bill as private landlords are said to attempt to avoid the repercussions of the Rent Acts. But

the Bill is not like the Rent Acts. It does not impose anything like the same burden on site owners that the Rent Acts impose on landlords, and I do not believe that site owners will have the incentive to try to avoid it. There may be some site owners who will not be prepared to accept any restrictions at all on their activities and who will seek to avoid the obligation to offer an agreement. But, in that case, the Bill provides a means for the occupier to press his claim to an agreement. If he has to, he can go to court for an order requiring the making of an agreement—on terms —that the court considers just and equitable.
It is in the context of the sales of mobile homes that some of the worst abuses have been said to occur on mobile home sites. The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned Esther Rantzen's television programme. There have also been instances on the radio programme "Checkpoint." The programmes have highlighted cases in which occupiers have been forced to sell their homes to site owners for a very low price only to see them sell them on at a vast profit.
I do not want to see that happen any more than anyone else, but I think we should be clear that those abuses have generally happened where occupiers have not had statutory agreements under the 1975 Act. Agreements under the Act give occupiers the right to sell their own homes at a fair market price. The Bill will do the same, and of course it will make it possible for many more occupiers to have statutory agreements.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we are re viewing the procedures governing the sale of a mobile home in the light of the responses to the consultation paper that we issued on commission, and of the arguments put forward in another place. We will also, of course, take into account the views that have been expressed today. Our intention is to inform the House of the maximum level of commission that we will prescribe, while the Bill is still before the House. We will also have something further to say about the provision that allows a site owner first refusal when a mobile home is up for sale. Beyond that, I would rather not say any more at this stage.
I wish to deal finally with model terms. The Bill does not provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe t form that agreements must take. I am not convinced that it would be particularly helpful for it to try to do so unless we were also to impose detailed control on the content of agreements. That we do not intend to do.
Schedule 1 of the Bill deals with the content of agreements. Part I of the schedule lists those requirements with which agreements must comply. Part II lists those matters which an agreement must cover but it does not say how they are to be covered. It says, for example, that an agreement must provide for the provision and improvement of services by the site owner. It does not say what those services have to be. The services will, of course, vary enormously from site to site. It is my view that these are matters which the site owner and the occupier should properly resolve between themselves.
The Bill is important for those whom it affects. It will provide the basis for the relationship between site owners and the occupiers of mobile homes in the future. We have to be sure that it is as fair as possible to both sides. We need a measure that will provide real and worthwhile protection for occupiers but which does not drive site owners to give up their sites. I believe that the Bill can


achieve that objective and that it can provide a basis for the industry to develop in the future. I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is designed to enable the United Kingdom Government to ratify, without reservation, the United Nations convention on the physical protection of nuclear material. The convention recognises the need for co-operation between states to ensure adequate protection of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes during transit between states. It also calls upon states to create a common range of criminal offences for which extradition may be granted.
The convention was opened for signature on 3 March 1980 in Vienna and New York and was signed by the United Kingdom on 30 June 1980. It will come into force when 21 states have ratified it. So far, five states have ratified, but 28 others have signed. The convention follows the pattern of other international conventions dealing with specific problems—for example, The Hague convention for the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, usually known as the hijacking convention; the Montreal convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation; the convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons; and, more recently, the convention against the taking of hostages.
The physical protection standards laid down in articles 1 to 6 of the convention correspond to those set out in existing guidance issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United Kingdom and many other countries have voluntarily adhered to it since it was first produced a number of years ago, and no legislation is required to ensure that those standards are complied with.
Article 7, however, obliges us to create new offences. Furthermore, each state is required to establish jurisdiction in respect of these offences wherever they occur, and, when an offender is within the jurisdiction, a state must either prosecute or extradite. Usually, where the events have occurred abroad, extradition will be the more practicable and appropriate course. But the aim of the convention is to ensure, as far as possible, that, one way or another, the offender does not find a safe haven in another country. The country to which he flees can either extradite or, if not willing to do so—perhaps because the person is one of its nationals—bring the man to trial.
Although there have been hoaxes—and hoaxes easily recognisable as such—we know of no incidents in the United Kingdom which would have involved the commission of these new criminal offences. Furthermore, we have received no reports of such incidents having occurred elsewhere. But the danger is there, and, as more countries make use of nuclear power, it must be appropriate to recognise the threat and legislate accordingly.
The acts which we are required to make punishable may be divided into two groups: first, those which parallel offences that already exist in our domestic law; and, secondly, those for which our law has no direct equivalents. Most of the acts covered by the convention fall into the first group and correspond broadly with existing offences. For example, the convention requires us


to make punishable the intentional commission of an act causing death which has been committed without lawful authority and has involved the use or handling of nuclear material. Hon. Members will realise that the existing offences of murder and manslaughter adequately cover such acts and no new offences therefore need to be created.
Similarly, other acts which we are required to penalise correspond to offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, or their Scottish equivalents. All that has been necessary in respect of these offences, therefore, has been to ensure that we have necessary extra-territorial jurisdiction over them when they are committed abroad in relation to, or by means of, nuclear material. This is achieved by clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 2 deals largely with those acts which the convention requires us to make punishable under our law but which have no precise domestic equivalent. They comprise certain preparatory acts and threats—threats which, because nuclear material is involved, are sufficiently serious to attract criminal sanctions. The first of the new offences, in clause 2(2), is designed to catch a person who receives, holds or deals with nuclear material, either intending that, or being reckless whether, certain serious offences may be committed with or in relation to it. I would be surprised if the House felt that this marked a very dramatic change in our criminal law. Our law already recognises that in certain circumstances it is sometimes necessary to provide more protection than can be afforded by the law of attempt and to make special provision for cases in which a person with evil intentions is in possession of the means to carry them out. The offences of possessing a firearm with intent to injure and carrying a firearm with intent are the most obvious examples.
Then we come to the making of threats. As is recognised in clause 1, certain threats made in connection with nuclear material, specifically threats made to reinforce a demand for money or property, would constitute the offence of blackmail under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 2, however, penalise, as the convention requires, the making of threats for other purposes that would not be covered by that section of the Theft Act. Subsection (3) would enable us to deal, for example, with terrorists who threaten to use nuclear material to cause death, serious injury or substantial damage to property in an attempt to secure the release of prisoners, while subsection (4) would cover the case of a person who threatens to steal nuclear material for a similar purpose.
The offences created by clause 2 are all to be triable on indictment only and punishable with a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment or the maximum punishment available for the substantive offence contemplated or threatened, whichever was the lesser.
Let me revert for one moment to jurisdiction. The convention requires signatories to ensure that they have jurisdiction over the offences that it covers when they are committed in their territory or on board one of their ships or aircraft, when the alleged offender is one of their nationals, and when the offence has been committed elsewhere but the alleged offender is found in their territory and they do not extradite him.
The law of the United Kingdom is based on the territorial principle. Historically our courts have jurisdiction over any crime committed here or, with certain

exceptions, on our ships and aircraft, but in general they do not have jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, even by United Kingdom nationals, and certainly not over foreign nationals. There is, however, a small number of exceptions of long standing, such as murder, over which our courts have always had jurisdiction, even when committed by "a subject of Her Majesty" on land abroad.
In addition, there is a small but growing nu Tiber of offences which have arisen out of international conventions and in respect of which the United Kingdom has agreed with other nations that their seriousness in conjunction with their international character merits special measures. Hijacking and the taking of hostages are obvious examples. It is, however, a common feature of international conventions of this sort that signatories are obliged either to extradite offenders or to prosecute them, and the convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials is no exception. It is our normal practice to extradite offenders who have committed offences abroad, and I cannot envisage our having to exercise the extraterritorial jurisdiction created in the Bill except in the most exceptional circumstances.
Clause 3 provides for the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution and for the jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland.
Clause 4(1) includes consequential amendments to the Internationally Protected Persons Act and the Suppression of Terrorism Act to preserve the need for consent to prosecute under those Acts, even though the act complained of also constitutes an offence under the Bill.
The convention requires that the offences should be extraditable between contracting states, and clause 5 makes the necessary provisions. I should emphasise that the traditional safeguards governing the return of ugitive offenders will still apply and the Bill does not change in any respect the procedures in our courts and their attendant safeguards. We are not binding ourselves to return a person to a state merely because that state asks for extradition in any circumstances.
Clause 6, read in conjunction with the schedule,. provides the definition of nuclear material to which the legislation applies by reference to article 1(a) and (b) of the convention. The definition covers all forms of uranium except natural ore and any form of uranium with less than the natural proportion of fissile isotopes, and all plutonium except plutonium 238 with isotopic concentration exceeding 806—that is, plutonium that is used to power heart pacemakers. It will be noted that we have followed the convention and limited application only to material used for peaceful purposes. The drafters of the convention recognised that nuclear material used for military purposes is already subject to very stringent physical protection, and this is acknowledged in the preamble to the convention.
Clause 6(2) recognises that there may be difficulties of proof as to whether material is or is not in fact used for peaceful purposes, particularly when an alleged offence has taken place outside the United Kingdom, and the subsection provides that a certificate of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the material was or was not used, as the case may be, for peaceful purposes.
Clause 7 makes provision concerning the application of the Bill's provisions to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and to overseas territories. Clause 8 gives the short title and provides for entry into force to be set by Order in Council.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If, on clause 6, the Minister certifies that the materials are for peaceful purposes, what would be the position of the person who was alleged to be interfering with material that is used for defence purposes? The Minister said that such materials are subject to physical protection. Would the range of penalties and offences be different if the material was for defence as distinct from peaceful purposes? Would the effect of a certificate from the Minister be to transfer the allegations from one set of offences to another set?

Mr. Waddington: As I have tried to make clear, the convention deals only with nuclear materials for peaceful purposes. Therefore, none of the offences that I have mentioned could bite in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). One would have to look to other criminal law that has a particular relevance to offences concerning the use of nuclear materials, or be thrown back on the ordinary criminal law which, in almost every conceivable circumstance, would have a relevance to actions concerning nuclear materials. It was the wish of the members of the IAEA, most of which are not states with nuclear weapons, to make this a convention dealing with materials for peaceful purposes.
I do not think that I need to go further in outlining the framework of the Bill. Enactment of this legislation will enable us to show to other countries our continuing commitment to co-operative measures against terrorism by enabling us to ratify the convention. I am sure that, in the circumstances, the Bill will receive a warm reception tonight and will make speedy progress through its various stages in the House.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Under successive Governments it has been the commendable practice of this country, unlike many other countries, not to ratify United Nations conventions until we are able to put into effect and into law the requirements of that convention. This has meant that although we are often slow to ratify, and have been subjected to criticism because we have not ratified, when we do it means something and is a significant step forward. This seems preferable to ratifying just for the sake of keeping up appearances on the international scene, without any practical result.
How many countries up to today have ratified this convention, and when do we expect to be in a position to do so? There are other requirements of the convention, apart from the legislation to which we shall presumably give a Second Reading tonight. Is this the last stage in the measures necessary to ratify the convention, or are there several other measures needed before we can do so?
The Bill deals with extending the scope of specified serious offences concerning nuclear material, and is only one part of the convention. The convention also covers, as the Minister will know, the physical protection of the nuclear material during storage and transport. Have these requirements been met so that the convention can be ratified?
Has the Minister considered whether it should be a separate offence for these requirements of the convention not to be met—that is, the various matters relating to physical protection? It surely follows that the better protected the material is, the less likelihood there is of the offences detailed in the Bill being committed. That is one way to prevent the need to implement the Bill.
Loss, sabotage and theft will all be less likely if these substances are protected carefully. As the Minister has said, acts of terrorism are growing in frequency and severity throughout the world. I am sure that we welcome the fact that there has been none in this country so far. I hope that that situation remains. The increasing use of nuclear material in science, medicine and industry makes the Bill essential if we are to continue to ensure that no offences are created. There will be far more of these materials circulating in future as their use in industry and science increases. Terrorism has increased and the likelihood of terrorists using these dangerous and lethal substances will obviously increase as well.
I welcome the establishment of a standardised range of criminal offences among all countries and international co-operation in respect of them. All these measures will help to reduce the risk to the public of being exposed to radiation. Some members of the public are still suspicious of the use of nuclear power because of the dangers of radiation, especially those who live in areas where the material might be transported, stored or used. Perhaps the convention, with its protective measures, and the Bill will help to allay some public anxiety and restore some confidence.
Article 5 of the convention refers to a
central authority and point of contact having responsibility for physical protection of nuclear material and for co-ordinating recovery and response operations in the event of any unauthorized removal, use or alteration".
I ask the Minister to tell us what will be the "central authority" in Britain for that purpose. Paragraph 3 of article 5 refers to consultations
with … or through international organizations
that must take place. Which are the international organisations that have been consulted?
Under paragraph 2 of article 17 certain countries have entered reservations. France, Poland, Hungary and the German Democratic Republic have all said that they do not consider themselves to be bound by the dispute settlement procedures provided for in the convention. France does not accept the competence of the International Court of Justice.
All these countries are apparently opting out of important parts of the convention relating to the commission of offences. Does the Minister agree that by doing that they are weakening the effectiveness of the convention and the effectiveness of the Bill? The whole point of the Bill is that it has an international aspect. However, the countries that I have mentioned are saying that they do not consider themselves to be bound by the dispute settlement procedures and France does not accept the competence of the International Court of Justice. Surely that will hinder the effectiveness of our legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has drawn attention to the reference in the convention to nuclear material used for military purposes. The convention states
such material is and will continue to be accorded stringent physical protection.
It says no more than that. We are led to believe that we can all rest assured that the material is protected and that if anyone tries to steal it or tamper with it all will be well for some reason that is not really stated. The Minister says that that does not really come within the Bill, but if we are to go to all this trouble to introduce specific legislation covering nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, what is the position on the tampering, theft or interference with


materials that are used for nuclear weapons? Is it not necessary for the House to pass any laws to cover tampering, theft or interference? Is the Minister satisfied? He did not seem to be able to specify exactly what laws would be involved. Is he satisfied that there will be civil protection for those who might interfere or tamper with these materials?
We have had incidents of trespass at Greenham common and perhaps there will be incidents in which nuclear materials for war purposes are stolen or sabotaged. It is essential that as much care should be taken to protect nuclear weapons used for peaceful purposes as is apparently taken to protect nuclear materials for war purposes. We shall agree to the Bill's Second Reading but there will be a good deal of detail that we shall wish to pursue in Committee.

Mr. Tony Benn: I am sure that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It deals with the safety of nuclear materials, about which there is much public concern. However, the Bill touches on only a narrow sector of the hazards that are created by the use of nuclear power. I should like briefly to tell the House why, in the eight years for which I was ministerially responsible for civil nuclear power, I was converted, first from support of it to scepticism and anxiety and then to the feeling that it was undesirable for Britain to use it.
However, I fully support this 1980 convention, its objectives and enactments, because all nuclear materials are potentially dangerous and must be safeguarded. When I was Secretary of State for Energy, as some hon. Members may remember, I introduced legislation to allow the arming of Atomic Energy Authority constables to be sure that there was no theft of plutonium or of other nuclear materials from Atomic Energy Authority establishments. The House accepted that legislation because it felt that it contained necessary safeguards.
But the issue goes much further than terrorism. In reading the convention, which has been alluded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), it is clear that it touches on a number of matters involving the use of materials for various purposes. I believe that the time has come for a wider discussion about the risks associated with nuclear materials in both their civil and military context.
First, there are now grounds for believing that in the mining of uranium the workers who are involved can be subjected to health hazards that were not hitherto publicly understood and discussed. We have a small amount of natural uranium in Britain but we have never mined it. We have bought our uranium from abroad. Were there the same health and safety standards in the mines from which Britain draws its uranium that we insist on at home, the cost of uranium would be very much increased. We have never included the true social costs of uranium mining protection in the costs of nuclear power.
My second point relates directly to the convention that has been drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On many occasions in the House, as Minister of Technology and as Secretary of State for Energy, I have referred to what are loosely called international safeguards in respect of nuclear operations. I must tell the House that there are no safeguards. In the handling of nuclear material

there is no guarantee that there will be no leakage from civil to military purposes. I say that with a particular case in mind that will be familiar to those who followed it.
Pakistan developed its own nuclear weapons programme—or was thought to be developing its own nuclear weapons programme. If the Minister is anxious I tell him that I do not think that he will be able to deal with all my points, and I would not expect him to do so. I am trying to open up a broader range of questions.
When it came to the attention of the then British Government and the Cabinet, of which I was a member, that Pakistan was engaged in developing the bomb, the only way we could bring any pressure to bear on Pakistan was politically, economically and through trade. We refused to supply Pakistan with certain materials. That was the way in which the so-called safeguards were to be maintained. But after the invasion of Afghanistan when the Americans wanted Pakistan to be drawn back as part of the American response to what was happening in Afghanistan, all those pressures on Pakistan were immediately lifted. There are no safeguards. There is a crude monitoring system but if the monitoring system throws up an anxiety about the misuse of civil nuclear technology to produce the bomb, one is back in the political arena and the matter can only be dealt with there.
In signing the convention the Community has registered some reservations about arbitration. Under Euratom there is a requirement that all new nuclear materials that come to any country should be available for transfer to any other country in the Community. Since the French are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, materials that are brought under safeguard once they get into the area of Euratom can be transferred throughout the whole of the Community. That is another leakage in the international safeguard system.
My third anxiety relates to the need for higher safety standards in nuclear processes. Two factors relating to this are important. First, when nuclear technology was first developed, people knew very little about it and had to learn as they went along. I do not intend in any way to criticise those who learnt as they went along. As they faced new hazards, they tried to stiffen their safeguards. Indeed, many of the safeguards are what one might call gold-plated compared with safeguards in other industries. But that does not alter my point. We are dealing here with extremely dangerous material. I shall cite an example which I have previously mentioned in the House.
In December 1978 the Atomic Energy Authority at Windscale, in carrying out a normal examination o f its site, discovered that there had been a major leakage of what it calls liquor—which is the highly toxic waste, and the most dangerous stuff of all—out of a sump and into the ground. It was analysed three months later in March 1979 and was one of the last things brought to my attention as Secretary of State. When I investigated the matter and discussed it with Sir John Hill, he told me that to recover that highly toxic waste that had sunk under the earth would involve building a new plant at Windscale, so dangerous was the material that had leaked into the ground.
Another important question is the movement of plutonium nitrates by sea from Dounreay to Windscale which, as far as I can remember, was about to be authorised and is probably now taking place. In the United States plutonium nitrates are not allowed to be moved.
Another important question is the movement of uranium and plutonium by air and the possibility that an aircraft containing this material may crash or be involved in an ordinary accident.
There is also the question of the control of emission of nuclear wastes from establishments either civil or military. Yesterday I tabled questions to the Ministry of Defence and to the Welsh Office about a letter dated 13 October 1982 from the Welsh Office to the Royal ordnance factory in Cardiff, implying that there were changed standards to be applied in the emission of waste either by air through high stacks, or into the sewers of Cardiff, or in solid waste disposal. I am not querying the answer that I received but I should like to know how it is that such important changes, which could easily affect health if they were not carefully safeguarded, were made. Why were the changes made? How do the emissions from Royal ordnance factories differ from those from civil establishments and are they monitored?
We know much less about the military control of these processes than we do about civil control. Anyone who has had anything to do with civil nuclear power will know that there is the most meticulous monitoring of milk and of grass growing around the nuclear power stations. They are examined to see whether there is any adverse effect on the environment. Does that happen around military establishments? I do not know because they are handled under a totally different regime, which links up with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. It is all very well to say that we protect military materials with greater care than any other materials—I do not doubt that—but are the people around the establishment where nuclear materials for military purposes are processed or developed,, treated with the same care?
Another hazard is the final disposal of nuclear waste. For a long time the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell argued that the so-called "Harvist system", or glassification system, would provide a final solution for the disposal of highly toxic waste—the so-called liquor which is the nice word they use about it. It is now apparent that this system is not proving satisfactory, that the borings that were to have been made with a view to finding long-term solutions to the problem by putting the waste in glass blocks underground have not proved satisfactory. It appears now that these wastes may continue to be stored in the zinc-lined tanks on the surface, from one of which came the leak from Windscale in 1978.
Another important consideration is the cost of decommissioning plant. We have never decommissioned a nuclear power station. We do not know what safeguards would be involved when a power station closed or what the cost would be.
I move on now, to complete the picture—because I will not argue a wider case by referring to the nuclear weapons side—to the risk of nuclear accident. The risk in a military use is very apparent. Another issue is the effects of tests of nuclear weapons. I know that there is a test ban treaty but it does not cover underground tests. This brings me to my next point, which is arousing considerable public interest. Are we satisfied that the compensation for those who, for one reason or another—I do not allocate any blame—have been subjected to a health hazard through an involvement in nuclear work is adequate?
It has recently been reported that the Government are to carry out a rough and ready health check on those who were present at the Pacific tests after the war. We know that soldiers who were exposed in America to the first Nevada tests have revealed a high incidence of cancer. If we really take seriously the long-term hazards to health arising from what at the time seemed a quite safe use of nuclear power or, indeed, the testing of nuclear weapons, we may find that a large compensation bill faces us. As in all compensation cases, the authorities are anxious not to move for fear of creating a precedent.
The next point hinges on all that I have said so far. One consequence of nuclear power is the great secrecy surrounding all nuclear matters. I fully understand that. If one is to have the bomb, one does not tell people where it is or how to make it. Indeed, the post-war Labour Government did not even tell Parliament that they were making the bomb. But behind that framework of legitimate secrecy, very powerful international lobbies are operating. The House would be foolish if it believed that secrecy concealed only matters involving the national interest. It also covers things that it would be greatly in the national interest for the public to know.
There is the close connection between civil and military matters—the role of Westinghouse and GEC and the Central Electricity Generating Board in pressing for the pressure water reactor, of which I saw something. The role of Dr. Marshall was mentioned in a recent Granada programme on the PWR. I shall not go into details. Many letters from Kleinwort Benson were used in the programme and an inquiry is certainly needed into what goes on behind this secrecy that is defended on the ground of preventing nuclear materials falling into undesirable hands.
In this context, the public is kept in more general ignorance. I now refer to the Layfield inquiry into the PWR that may be built at Sizewell, involving £10 billion or £20 billion of potential investment. In the discussions as to whether that is desirable the public are not allowed to hear a fairly balanced argument because there is no funding for the alternative view. Safeguards are necessary.
No one could argue that nuclear material should be pushed around like an ordinary industrial material. But, as with the legislation that I introduced on the arming of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, I must tell the House that all the safeguards take their toll in civil liberties. It would be extremely foolish to suppose that we could preserve such a curtain of secrecy and security around such a growing operation without impinging on the rights of the public in various respects. Potentially, indeed, nuclear power is a threat to the rights of Parliament.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that this country's industry should be denied cheap energy when our European competitors obtain far cheaper energy for their industry by using nuclear power?

Mr. Benn: I had intended to come to that at the end of my speech, but it so important that I shall deal with it now. If the full costings to which I have referred—health protection in uranium mining, full protection for nuclear processes, compensation for those who become ill and all the necessary safeguards throughout the processes—were added to the bill, I do not believe that nuclear power would


be cheaper. The hon. Gentleman may not have heard the beginning of my speech, when I said that after eight years of Cabinet responsibility for nuclear power I was persuaded, for the reasons that I have given and others, that the case for nuclear power did not bear examination on grounds either of economy or of safety.
I raise these matters in a debate on an acceptable convention and acceptable legislation because the House and the public should be aware of both sides of the argument. It is not enough to hear one side alone. If the proper safeguards existed—they would be very costly—and if the costs were properly allocated, this would add enormously to the cost of nuclear power. If proper compensation were paid for those who may have suffered as a result, I do not believe that the House would approve the building of any more nuclear power stations. That is the conclusion that I reached. I also believe that we should adopt a non-nuclear defence strategy.
I recall vividly my conversations in Washington with Mr. O'Leary, the then deputy secretary to the then Secretary for Energy, Mr. Schlesinger. Mr. O'Leary, an experienced man from the Federal Power Commission, told me that he believed that within 100 years there would be no more nuclear power in the world. In view of his long experience, I was staggered at that remark. But when I consider the long period that has elapsed since the last ordering of nuclear power stations in the United States, and the fact that Westinghouse is so hungry that it must have an order at Sizewell to keep going, I believe that there is now sufficient evidence to suppose that one day the public will demand just such a policy and the House will adopt it.
Meanwhile, I hope that the debate will continue about these matters, on which differing views are legitimately and honestly held. This Bill has provided at least one of those rare opportunities to range over the whole relationship between nuclear power and public safety.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the Bill. In an age of nuclear materials, it is necessary to introduce safeguards to ensure that those materials do not go astray.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said, the Bill is a demonstration of the dangers of nuclear power, and how necessary it is to extend the criminal law to cope with those dangers to protect society. The same criminal sanction is not necessary when dealing with coal. The only dangers with coal are that someone might throw chunks of it at someone else and hit the person, or that some might be stolen for use on home fires. Those are minimum dangers compared with the massive powers of the Bill. The sentence of 14 years imprisonment is proposed because of the enormous threat that nuclear materials pose. With the growth of a nuclear economy, the dangers increase. That is the reason for the introduction of this legislation.
In May 1981, in reply to a parliamentary question, it was pointed out that exports of plutonium from 1971 to 1981 amounted to 3,210 kg, and imports of plutonium were 560 kg. Exports of highly enriched uranium were 660 kg, with 640 kg being imported. Movements of nuclear materials in and out of the country will be covered by this legislation. The more movements there are, the greater the dangers that may arise from the actions from which this legislation is designed to safeguard the public.
Internal movements of nuclear material increase as a result of an increase in nuclear power capacity. Two derailments have occurred in the Aire valley close to large centres of population. The flasks were fortunately empty at the time and the CEGB claimed that they were devoid of any radioactive content. However, there were derailments of highly specialised cargoes, although I have no doubt that they were handled with special care. A potentially highly hazardous load was put at risk.
The passage of nuclear materials along our roads and railways gives rise to dangers. If material of this nature is spilt, dangers arise. Dangers also arise because of possible interference by organisations such as groups of terrorists. That is what the legislation is designed to safeguard us against. Those actions point to the erosion of our rights and civil liberties because of the dangers posed by the transit of this material. That is why 140 local authorities, largely, but not exclusively, Labour-controlled, decided that they want to exercise some jurisdiction over the passage of such dangerous material and have declared themselves nuclear-free zones. Local authorities have no legislation to back them in their aspirations, but it remains an aim because local authorities recognise the dangers arising from the material. Information to local authorities on how to cope with this material is sparse, to say the least.
From 1962 to 1980 electricity generation by nuclear power increased from 0·7 per cent. to 12·6 per cent. Now the Government are proposing to embark on a ruinously costly programme of PWRs. The first of those reactors is the subject of an inquiry now. The converse of the growth in nuclear power would be that declining nuclear power generation would diminish the potential hazards from the movement of such materials and would help to restore the civil liberties, rights and duties of British citizens. However, the Government are determined to push forward the PWR programme, hence the inquiry at Sizewell. That inquiry is not likely to be fair or frank because the decision has already been made. When the Secretary of State appeared on the BBC programme "Any Questions" he made clear his total commitment, as he has in the House—but naturally we give due deference to the greater importance of television and radio programmes—to nuclear power as part of our economy.
To justify the massive costs of nuclear power generation, the Central Electricity Generating Board is cutting back on coal and oil-fired power stations, although there is already massive over-capacity in generation. It is estimated that, by 1985, over-capacity at peak levels will be 29 per cent.—it is not far from that figure now—and in Scotland it will be a massive 74 per cent. The older generation of coal-fired power stations are sited near urban areas and would be ideal for combined heat and power schemes. However, they are being phased out and closed, so that the opportunity to have combined heat and power stations is also being reduced.
That is an enormous waste of energy, because the nuclear power stations are, by virtue of their dangers, never sited near urban areas because of the consequences of a "China Syndrome" event, when the core of the generating station melts, with a resulting massive explosion. That must always be a possibility, although only a faint one, or there would be little point in siting nuclear power stations away from large concentrations of population.
The cost of the new reactors, according to the.CEGB figure, which is subject to CEGB propaganda and


distortion, is £1,147 million. In addition, the CEGB has mounted a massive public relations campaign that puts into the shade the money that the opponents of Sizewell can marshall. It is a continuing indictment of the Secretary of State for Energy that he has failed to meet the costs of the opponents of Sizewell so that a proper and fair inquiry can be held.
I realise that the Minister cannot answer all those points because they are not within his remit as a Home Office Minister, but if any of my points are incorrect—some of them are opinions but some contain information gleaned from parliamentary questions—I should be happy if he would draw the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to this debate, and his right hon. Friend can answer my points in writing.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) talked about costs, and it has always been said that nuclear power would provide Britain with massive quantities of cheap power. However, that is an illusion. Professor Rotblat said in The Guardian on 29 May 1980:
Straightforward calculations can show that we have been misled about the potential of nuclear power, and that in reality it can make only a small contribution to the world's energy needs over the next 50 years.
I shall deal with the cost of nuclear power in a moment. I am especially keen that the Minister should respond in greater detail than he did to my intervention on clause 6. I cannot understand why defence materials are not included in the provisions. They apply only to peaceful materials, as does the convention that underlines the legislation, but it is not sufficient simply to say that the nuclear materials used in the defence section are subject to physical safeguards. If materials are subject to theft or nuclear blackmail, the weight of this legislation must come into force. Nuclear materials do not discriminate between the two uses, although I accept that nuclear materials that are used for defence purposes are generally more enriched than those that are used for civilian purposes.
In a book called "The Costs of Nuclear Power", Colin Sweet said:
The first nuclear reactor built in the UK is wrongly described as a 'commercial' reactor. Calder Hall commissioned in 1956, was built to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Electricity was a mere by-product. To do this, it has to be used in a different way from a reactor being used to produce electricity. As a result, Calder Hall's power output has always been comparatively low because the objective has been to maximise the plutonium output for the Ministry of Defence. The same is true of Chappelcross in Scotland. These reactors are owned and operated by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), which until recently was owned by the AEA but is now owned by the Department of Energy.
While the eight Magnox reactors owned by the CEGB have always been considered to be wholly commercial enterprises, it is by no means certain that this is the case. In 1958, the Government asked the CEGB to modify the design of three reactors to allow military-grade plutonium to be obtained more easily. In the event, this was only done in the case of Hinkley Point 'A'. There is no way of knowing how extensive this practice has been for the Government is hardly likely to admit publicly that it has broken the 'safeguards' imposed by Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Is clause 6 so phrased that in the event of appropriation or theft of nuclear materials the Secretary of State can produce a certificate to say that it is being used for civilian purposes to avoid the Government being embarrassed when in fact it is being used for defence purposes although the ostensible source is a civilian reactor? The

Government would be embarrassed if, in a criminal trial, it was shown that a civilian reactor was producing military-grade plutonium.
It would not be good enough for the Secretary of State, by a sleight of hand, to produce a certificate that was not challengeable in the courts and would put the basis of the court action outside any potential embarrassment for the Government who might have been exposed to the accusation that they were in breach of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. That is why there is absolutely no reason why, if nuclear materials are dangerous—all hon. Members agree that they are—they should not be subject to the safeguards of criminal sanctions.
This legislation should not simply stop at the civilian case; it should be extended to cover military materials. The possibility of the Government being embarrassed by the blurred distinction between the two should not give rise to any of the qualifications in clause 6.
Nuclear power is not the blessing that has been held out to us. In the post-war period, we saw the horror of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, exploded by America as a first step in the cold war and as a demonstration against the Soviet Union rather than particularly against the Japanese, who were suing for peace at the time. The negotiations were deliberately broken off by the American state department in order to allow such a demonstration to be made. At that time, the alternative of using "atoms for peace" was an attractive and enthralling slogan embraced by people who felt that this new power must never again be used against humanity and that we should be able to bring about developments which would benefit mankind. Now, however, as we see the widespread use of nuclear power, and indeed the wider use of it proposed by the Government, we can see its real disadvantages—the problems of storage of the material, potential leakages and potential damage to people.
At the same time, one must acknowledge that, because much, though not all, of the industry is in public hands, the standards of operation are likely to be high. The reservation about the American industry is that it is in private hands and private owners tend to cut corners in the interests of profit. Nevertheless, very strong reservations about all the problems arising from the use and development of nuclear power remain and the Bill is an illustration of this. I regard it as necessary but necessary as a concomitant of the dangers of nuclear power generation. It is a reservation we must all keep in mind.

Mr. John Watson: Although I appreciate the hon. Member's reservations about nuclear power and environmental hazards, would he not agree that nuclear power is an alternative to the continued burning of hydrocarbons in the form of oil and coal, which presents considerable environmental hazards of its own, not only in the form of soot and particulate emissions but also in the form of acid rain, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides which, added together, are perhaps worse than any normal environmental hazard presented by nuclear power.

Mr. Cryer: I would not agree with the hon. Member. Of course the burning of coal presents environmental problems. One of the success stories over environmental pollution is to be found in the heart of the south Yorkshire coalfield, where the pollution of the post-war period from both domestic fires and industrial coal-burning has been almost completely eradicated. Of course we must take


account of this sort of problem, but the fact is that we are sitting on a massive quantity of coal. That coal, as a material, is harmless. Combustion gives rise to problems but we have dealt with many of those problems in a satisfactory way. I understand the problem of acid rain, but we have to set against such problems, most of which can be solved, the increasing dangers arising from the storage of irradiated materials, the fact that the vitrification process for the storage of nuclear waste has not yet been satisfactorily developed, the fact that the boring of holes in which to store the nuclear waste has been suspended because of massive local protest, the fact that if any of these nuclear power stations does get out of hand and if any controls do go awry then the resulting accident will cause enormous contamination for hundreds of years.
The Three Mile Island PWR site in America has not been decontaminated simply because sections of it cannot be approached. The difficulties arising from the combustion of coal are very small indeed when compared with the present problems arising from nuclear power generations. Certainly, potential nuclear problems are great in comparison with those of coal burning.
The much-vaunted cost of nuclear power has been very much overstated in the claim of cheapness by the CEGB. Professor Burn gave evidence to the Seclect Committee on Energy. I know that the AGR programme has not been a complete success, but the advanced gas-cooled reactor is regarded as safer than the PWR. The CEGB gave the figure of £2·5 billion, including interest, for construction of the AGR stations. However, Professor Burn estimated that the real cost of the AGR programme would be between £8,700 million and £11,100 million. He said that the increase in the real cost of the AGR programme over its initial cost was between 92 per cent. and 160 per cent.
In his report Professor Burn pointed out:
The only return on this investment—spread so far over 15 years—has been the intermittent output of electricity from the two of the five stations which have worked, whose four reactors have averaged roughly 30 per cent. of their design capacity since 1976.
The enormous capital cost and the considerable delays in operating the power stations are further aspects of nuclear power generation.

Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman would be less than fair to the House if he did not point out also that Professor Burn was giving that evidence not against the concept of nuclear power but in favour of the PWR reactor as against the AGR reactor.

Mr. Cryer: Indeed, and that makes my point even stronger, because it demonstrates that Professor Burn was not against but for nuclear power. The figures that I have quoted were not from a critical source. The booklet that I have used tonight and which I mentioned to the Minister earlier is from a nuclear power critic. I wanted to show that it is not just critics who can provide information critical of nuclear power generation. My argument is supported by figures from the Department of Energy and those people who support nuclear power.
The PWR inquiry, which I mentioned earlier, when the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) may not have been present, is not being undertaken fairly. I believe that the Secretary of State is committed to the PWR. I do not believe that the CEGB has established its case. The capital cost of Sizewell will be over £1 billion, which is about one third of the total amount invested annually in

manufacturing industry. It is an outlandishly high cost for the benefits claimed by the CEGB. I believe that there are a number of arguments on the debit side.
The legislation is necessary, but it is a consequence of our dependence on nuclear power. I should very much like to see a phasing out of that dependence, when this type of legislation would become increasingly unnecessary.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Unlike my hon. Friends who have spoken, I am an open and somewhat strident advocate of civil nuclear power. I believe in the competence of the Atomic Energy Authority. I visited Torness power station two months ago with colleagues. One needs to see the safeguards that are taken on site. With the arguable exception of Mr. Throughton, I do not think that there has yet been a nuclear power casualty anywhere in the British programme.
I become somewhat emotional on the other side of the argument. Yet again, tonight, I have received news of another tragic fatal pit accident at Bo'ness. The terrible truth is that the price of coal is too often pneumoconiosis or life itself. Those of us who have the privilege to represent miners are appalled that, because of lung diseases, people cannot climb staircases. I have attended too many miners' funerals to be other than a strong advocate of a nuclear alternative where it exists. Although many of my hon. Friends do not like my opinion, I must confess that I am an advocate of a regular, British replicated nuclear power building programme. Onerwise, there will be the great difficulty of continuity within the nuclear industry which is so essential to British industry.
The Bill is important in many ways. I do not propose to go over the arguments of the early 1970s with which I detained the House—rightly, in retrospect—on what happened at Aramco and the theft of nuclear secrets by Dr. Ali Quater Khan. That enabled the making of a Pakistani and Islamic bomb—if one wishes to use those chilling words—much quicker than would otherwise have been the case.
I do not doubt the importance of the subject to the public. I might be forgiven—I shall be succinct—if I ask for a candid explanation of what happened in the South Atlantic. Evidence of nuclear weapons going to the South Atlantic comes from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and others who on "Newsnight" said that it would be extraordinary if the fleet, especially that part which included the Fort Austin that went south of Gibraltar, was not carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but the Bill is concerned with the safety of domestic nuclear fuel, not with the South Atlantic.

Mr. Dalyell: I understood that clause 1 extended the scope of certain specified offences of a serious nature to cover things done outside the United Kingdom in relation to, or by means of, nuclear material. I hoped, therefore, that I would be in order to raise the question of our signing—as we did—protocol 1 of the treaty of Tlatelolco and ask—although not this Minister on this occasion—yet again for a full and candid statement on precisely how that treaty has been infringed. The treaty was endorsed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
On 16 December, I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have


not ratified the treaty of Tlatelolco, relating to the deployment of nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic. I also asked him if he remained satisfied that there had been no infraction of the treaty. He replied:
Of the Latin American states bordering the South Atlantic, only Argentina has not ratified the treaty of Tlatelolco." — [Official Report, 16 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 233.]
I must say that it is a major criticism of Argentina that it had not done so, but the Minister had nothing to add to previous answers which have not explained why we have apparently broken the treaty that we ourselves sought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will be difficult for the Minister to answer such questions because they have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I rest my argument on research into the emission of radio nucleides. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in reply to a written question, said:
The Natural Environment Research Council and the Medical Research Council are funding a number of projects on ionising radiation and on radioactivity. The Inter Research Council Committee on Pollution Research maintains a register of these projects."—[Official Report, 29 November 1982; Vol. 33, c. 69.] There was further information from Sir Herman Bondi.
There must be some specific knowledge of what happens when weapons are lost, wherever that may be. It could happen in Britain. Unfortunately, a number of helicopters have been lost. I shall not infringe upon the time of the House by listing specific locations, but I refer hon. Members to c. 543 of Hansard of 22 December 1982. Helicopters have been lost. Indeed, we know that helicopter accidents have occured off the Devon and Cornwall coasts. When nuclear weapons are carried, great dangers are created. We must be candid about the subject, because of the pollution that could affect the oceans.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon Friend especially concerned about clause 6, which provides for the Minister to issue a certificate that nuclear material is used for peaceful, not defence, purposes? Would that not give the Minister an opportunity to cover any use of nuclear materials that was not clear and authorised under international agreements?

Mr. DalyellI: That is an important issue. On 15 November 1982, many parliamentary questions were asked about the tomb of HMS Coventry. I refer hon. Members to c. 42 of Hansard. What on earth was the Stena Inspector and the Stena Seaspread—the oil recovery vessels—doing in that area, working hard day and night, if not to recover nuclear weapons? In such circumstances it is important to have some international agreement. We owe it to the international community to come clean about accidents that have happened, for which we must accept responsibility, if for no other reason than the build-up in the food chain. There is a build-up of radio nuclides. I am not speculating; I am certain of the facts. The seriousness of that is a matter for speculation, but certainly the subject is serious. I am arguing for candour. A terrible accident having happened, the British would do the international community a service if they came clean about it.
I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to read the moving letters written by Lieutenant David Tinker, the young man killed shortly before the end of the Falklands conflict, when HMS

Glamorgan was hit. Page 189 of the Franks report reveals that his letters showed how he came across dummy nuclear weapons in the Fort Austin. He remarked that if anybody had usd them, sympathy for Britain in the EC and the Third world would evaporate. I interpret that as the remark of a man who believed that real nuclear weapons, not dummies, were taken with the task force.
Perhaps the task force did not have time to unload the nuclear weapons at Gibraltar, and did not wish to do so at Ascension Island. Although some were off-loaded after leaving Portsmouth, to the best of my belief others were left on the ships. As accidents have happened and losses have occurred, should we not, in the context of the Bill, say that we have a duty to the international community to be candid and to ask them for any help that they can give us?
It is no answer in the 20th century, time and again in reply to parliamentary questions, to say that there is a longstanding convention that the subject will not be raised and that it is not in the public interest to do so. It is not only in the public interest, but in the international interest, to be candid about the loss of, accidents to, and the destruction of nuclear weapons and nuclear depth charges.

Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, I shall answer some of the points that have been raised in the debate. I shall answer first the questions that were asked by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). So far, five states have ratified the convention. Nothing more need be done by us to put ourselves in a position to ratify, and we intend to ratify immediately after Royal Assent.
The United Kingdom accepts unreservedly the standards of protection laid down by the IAEA, and played a leading part in drawing up those standards. In the United Kingdom, those standards are enforced administratively, and it is therefore not necessary to make any changes to domestic law so as to be in a position to ratify the convention and to comply with articles 1 to 6. This exercise tonight is the beginning of the exercise whereby we put ourselves in a position to comply with article 7 onwards.
The hon. Lady asked about the central authority mentioned in article 5. The Secretary of State for Energy has policy responsibility for security at nuclear installations. His advisers on that responsibility are the security service, which monitors the security arrangements of the operators of nuclear installations. The operational responsibility for security is on the management of those installations. In the case of the United Kingdom AEA and BNFL, the responsibility is carried by the atomic energy security branch of the United Kingdom AEA. Physical security at those sites is the responsibility of the United Kingdom AEA constabulary, and the constabulary has a close liaison with the county constabularies in areas where there are nuclear installations.
The hon. Lady asked whether the convention was not weakened as a result of certain countries making reservations. She was right up to a point. I say "up to a point", because a number of the provisions in the convention, if not complied with, would not attract any case before any international tribunal. The hon. Lady is right when she says that it would be far better if all states


had been prepared to sign and ratify without any reservations. We can take pride in the fact that we are prepared to ratify with no reservations.
I was asked by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about interference with materials for military purposes. If there were a case of theft of nuclear materials held for military purposes, that theft, if it took place in this country, would attract all the normal penalties that are available under criminal law for the offence of theft. The only difference is that in that case we should not be able to prosecute in this country someone who had committed that offence abroad. So it would not make the immense difference that it might appear to make at first blush.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) told us that when he was in Government he became converted to the proposition that the peaceful use of nuclear energy was undesirable. I can only say that his conversion seems to have come fairly late in the day because when he was Secretary of State for Energy in 1976 he commissioned a thorough review of thermal reactor systems by the National Nuclear Corporation and, on the basis of that review, as late as January 1978 he announced his decision to authorise the electrical supply industry to order two new advanced gas-cooled reactors.
We are entitled to look at opinion and experience abroad. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that Britain needs nuclear energy for at least three main reasons. First, it supplies electricity more cheaply than any other form of generation, such as oil or coal. The CEGB is convinced, both that the use of nuclear power will increase during the coming decades in the United Kingdom, and of its competitiveness. Only 12 per cent. of Britain's electricity today is nuclear compared with 40 per cent. of electricity in France, which will increase to between 60 per cent. and 65 per cent. by 1990. We cannot afford electricity which is more costly to our industry and consumers than that in other industrialised countries.
It is no good Labour Members saying that all the figures are wrong. They must give some explanation as to why it is that other countries are convinced that the way forward is to concentrate on the manufacture of energy by nuclear means.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that it is not entirely fair to press a Home Office Minister on these matters, but he should take account of the fact that there has been a massive cancellation of nuclear power station orders in the United States. It has cut its orders to about one third and no nuclear power station has been ordered in the United States for the past four to six years. There has also been a massive cutback in the Common Market. The views that the Minister purports to suggest are strange coming from Labour Members are becoming widely shared on grounds of economics as well as safety. I only ask the Minister not to venture too far in this area where serious academic opinion is now doubting the figures that have long been accepted as pointing to the economy of nuclear power.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is thrown back on the suggestion that all the proper costs are not being included. He cannot argue against the fact that electricity generated by nuclear means is cheaper at present. France has found it to be very much cheaper.
Secondly, we need nuclear energy to diversify our electricity supplies. At present over 80 per cent. of our

supplies come from coal and coal may become too valuable a commodity to use in power stations in the next century. We must plan ahead and use our resources wisely.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Watson) was right to point out that, while the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the hon. Member for Keighley point to the dangers of the use of nuclear energy, it cannot be doubted that there is increasing anxiety about the use of fossil fuels and their long-term effect on the environment. Only recently there has been great publicity about the way in which sulphur dioxide clouds have found their way to Scandinavia. It is becoming of increasing importance internationally to recognise the dangers that can flow from the use of fossil fuels.
The hon. Member for Keighley was inviting us to turn our backs on progress and ignore the benefits of using nuclear fuels when he urges us to accept that the use of nuclear fuel was uniquely dangerous. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Lothian, the facts are entirely to the contrary. There has not been a single accident in the history of nuclear power in this country that has caused the death of an employee, let alone a member of the public. One has to compare that with the tragic loss of life in the coal industry every year. Even taking into account the deaths that might have been caused by cancer among employees, ex gratia compensation has been paid in only six cases. One has to compare that with the record in other industries where occupational diseases still take a tragic toll—diseases such as asbestosis, silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The hon. Member for Keighley knows that full well. The safety record of the nuclear industry is excellent. The attitudes of employees within the industry is evidence of that.
There was another strange passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley that should not be passed over without comment. It was a strange re-writing of history when he said that the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to frighten the Russians and not to bring to an end the war with Japan. He seems to have entirely forgotten that the United States offered an international agreement renouncing for all time the use of atomic energy for military purposes shortly after the war. It was rejected entirely by Russia.
The hon. Gentleman said that civil nuclear materials were used for our weapons programme. He has been told before that that is incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy only recently made it clear that plutonium from nuclear power stations is not, and has never been, used to make bombs. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that assurance and not to continue to spread that canard when he has a firm statement from my right hon. Friend.
The debate has gone very wide. I have come close to offending in replying to some of the points that were made by the Opposition, but I felt it right that I should do so.

Mr. Dalyell: Will it be possible for a Minister to write to me about the issue of candour over the loss of nuclear weapons in the South Atlantic? I do not ask the Minister to answer now. I am asking only for a letter.

Mr. Waddington: I shall tell my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said. I did not mean to be discourteous in not mentioning his comments because I felt that we were close to being out of order. However, I promise to pass on his remarks.
I am glad that the Bill has had a wide welcome. It can do nothing but good. Therefore, I hope that it will have a swift passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Milk (Northern Ireland) Order, which was laid before this House on 19th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The order consolidates the Milk Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 and the Milk (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8 December 1982, and the Committee was satisfied that it is a purely consolidating measure. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Quarries (Northern Ireland) Order, which was laid before this House on 19th October in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The order consolidates the Quarries Act (Northern Ireland) 1927 and the enactments amending the Act. It was also considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 8 December 1982 and the Committee was satisfied that it was again a purely consolidation measure. I commend it to the House.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: In order to show on the record that I have been present, carrying out my duties, I say that I wish the order a speedy passage. Question put and agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

RATING AND VALUATION

That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft African Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.

That the draft Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.

That the draft Commonwealth Foundation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]

Question agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 5th July 1979 relating to the Select Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills be amended, by leaving out Mr. Nicholas Baker and inserting Mr. Matthew Parris.—[Mr. Major.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 26th June 1979 relating to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended, by leaving out Mr. Nicholas Baker and inserting Mr. Matthew Parris.—[Mr. Major.]

Orders of the Day — Maternity Provision

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Miss Joan Lestor: In the 15 months or so since I held the position of Opposition spokesperson on women's rights and welfare, I have received a large number of letters from women and from organisations concerned with women's rights. By far the largest part of my postbag has been concerned with the issue of maternity benefits, mainly because of the complexity involved in making claims and the regulations surrounding those who are entitled to the benefits. Several months ago, the Equal Opportunities Commission conducted a detailed survey of maternity provision in the United Kingdom. It found:
Britain is almost alone in continuing to regard the existence of maternity rights as a matter of debate; in most industrial nations the concern is to extend the existing provision.
I wish to try to draw to the attention of the Minister some of the difficulties that have been raised in the hope that he will perhaps examine them. British women, by any standards, are badly done by in respect of maternity benefits. Our maternity grant is almost at the bottom of the league in the industrialised world. United Kingdom women are subjected to a complicated claims procedure for entitlement to maternity pay and leave. A Policy Studies Institute report in 1980 revealed that just over half of all working women covered in its survey satisfied the provisions entitling them to maternity pay and leave. In other words, it may be the case that because of the manner in which our maternity legislation is structured, up to half of all working women are denied key entitlements and have no fallback other than a rigidly structured maternity allowance and a woefully inadequate maternity grant. For example, a woman who works one day after 1l weeks before the confinement loses her claim to the allowance.
Anyone doubting the ineffectiveness of maternity provision in the United Kingdom might have his attention drawn to a survey carried out by One-Parent Families. This has provided a great deal of information on the subject, and has shown that 25 per cent. of the most vulnerable pregnant women were receiving no help at a time of severe financial difficulty. This resulted in inadequate diet and lack of basic items for the baby. These were recurrent features of those women's experiences.
Maternity provision is riddled with complexities and could not possibly be covered in a debate as short as this. However, there are two problems of overriding concern that the Government might want to examine, and perhaps return to and comment upon later.
Maternity legislation is governed by a two-year rule. It is to this rule that most objections have been raised. A women is not entitled to maternity leave and maternity pay unless she has been with the same employer for two years, and in some cases for five years. We are the only European country that imposes such a restrictive period of qualifying service. In all but one other EC country the production of a medical certificate is sufficient for entitlement to maternity rights.
There can be no justification for a system such as ours whereby a woman who may have been working for twice the qualifying period—say four years—but who may change her job 12 months before she becomes pregnant,


perhaps because she wishes to improve her job prospects by changing employers, is then denied maternity pay and maternity leave.
For such women, the two-year rule is a disincentive to pursue their careers. A woman may have been working for twice the qualifying period but may have to change jobs, sometimes—this was one of the examples brought out in the surveys—because her husband had done what he had been encouraged to do, got on his bicycle and found work elsewhere. As a result, the woman has to renounce her claim to maternity benefit if she is to follow him and live with him in his new place of employment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is it not strange that if the husband in those circumstances were to fall ill and have to claim sickness benefit his entitlement to sickness benefit would not go on his record with the current employer, but on the credits built up over the years in employment?

Miss Lestor: That is a valid point that I was not going to make, so I am glad that my hon. Friend has made it.
A woman who, because of the lack of adequate child care provision, may have to give up work from time to time because of school holidays or when a child is ill, is denied maternity rights because she has broken her employment. A woman who is educated late in life, perhaps in her late 20s which is not unusual, and who wishes to have a family fairly quickly, is forced to wait for two years to qualify for the benefit.
Even worse, a woman who works part time will need to work for five years for the same employer before she can secure her claim to the job and have a child. It must be seen that this two-year rule is one of the biggest encumbrances and one of the most unfair rules that can apply. Although I know what some of the arguments were for the rule, looking at the Department of Employment survey on the difficulties of small firms over maternity rights and maternity leave, one sees that the Department could find no evidence to substantiate the claim that the firms were experiencing any difficulty.
Even for those women who have served their period of qualifying service, a whole new set of hurdles has to be climbed over. Unless a pregnant woman goes through a complicated procedure, made worse by the Employment Act 1980, of submitting a series of written notifications before and after the birth and producing the right certificates to the right people at the right time, she will find that all her maternity entitlement will be lost. She will be without maternity pay and in danger of not getting her job back. She will be at the mercy of her employer who may or may not decide to take her back.
A chairman of the employment appeal tribunal has recently described our maternity legislation as
of inordinate complexity exceeding the worst excesses of a taxing statute which is especially regrettable bearing in mind that they are regulating the everyday rights of employers and employees.
In my view, and in the view of the organisations that I have mentioned, this complicated procedure needs to be overhauled and streamlined, especially when we bear in mind the few women who are returning to work.
To what do the majority of pregnant women have access? They have a maternity allowance which is no longer earnings-related because of the Government's

decision to abolish ERS. That which has been saved from its abolition might have been used to top up the grant. The allowance is available only to women who have been paying the required level of national insurance contributions. Women who have not paid the required level of contributions but who qualify for maternity pay can have the allowance deducted from their pay notwithstanding the fact that they are not necessarily entitled to it. As ERS has been abolished, it is important for maternity pay to be paid at 100 per cent. again rather than at 90 per cent. It was paid at 90 per cent. because ERS resulted in it being topped up. This means that there has been a loss for all women. Women take a cut in pay to have a baby and the maternity pay fund is making money because of the abolition of ERS.
The only certain form of income for some pregnant women is the maternity grant. Women who have not been in employment, or who have been in irregular, low-paid jobs where they have not paid many national insurance contributions, have access to only one form of financial assistance at a costly and stressful time. They have access only to the £25 maternity grant.
I welcome the Government's decision to extend the maternity grant to all women. That is to be welcomed but the grant remains at the 1969 level. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) will agree that £25 would not buy even two dozen terry napkins for a new baby. The grant is not really adequate in 1983.
The United Kingdom is second from the bottom of the league table of EC maternity grants. In France, for example, women can receive over £1,000 or 41 times as much as British women. The figures produced for the maternity allowance show that the United Kingdom is almost at the bottom of the league table of all countries in the industrialised world. In a relatively poor country such as Portugal many women will receive a grant that is three times that which the women in the United Kingdom receive. So by any standards women in the United Kingdom are badly done by when it comes to maternity provision.
The Government have said that it would cost £72 million to re-establish the grant at its 1969 level, which would mean that it would have to be about £120. However, money has been saved by the abolition of ERS. Future taxation of the allowance could save up to £50 million. Money is available. Money has been saved which could reasonably be redistributed in the interests of women who are, in the majority of cases, denied access to benefits and other income at a time when they need it most. This often affects women who are already disadvantaged for various other reasons.
We should extend maternity pay to all working women so that they can make a contribution towards providing a better standard of living for their children. That surely cannot be a bad thing for any Government to want to do. If the maternity grant were increased as I have suggested, the Government would begin to be seen to be acknowledging the vital contribution made by women who are bringing children into the world.
In conclusion, the two-year rule should be abolished. It should no longer be applicable in these times. The Complexities surrounding how women claim and do not claim and who is entitled and who is not should be resolved. The evidence suggests that many of the women in greatest need at a time of childbearing are the very women who are denied access to benefits.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) in her pressing of the need for better maternity provision for women. I did not intend to intervene in the debate and, had it not begun so early, I, like many other hon. Members, might have missed what my hon. Friend was saying. But as we have a little time it is important to emphasise some of the facts that have been mentioned.
It is undoubtedly the case, as my hon. Friend has said, that at a time of stress as well as joy many women encounter the added anxiety of financial difficulty. They should be removed from all such worries. When a child is born a woman's mind should be on things other than financial circumstances and whether she is able to bring the child into the world without facing financial hardship. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the position for many women has become worse over the past few years. The most vulnerable women have probably suffered worse at the hands of the Government during that period.
My hon. Friend has referred to the changes that have taken place because of the employment protection legislation. Women at work face added complexities when they wish to make a claim for maternity leave or wish to return to work after a phase away from employment. The position of women in work has undoubtedly deteriorated because of the legislation. Women in part-time employment have suffered most. Five years in one place of employment is a considerable length of time for women who, in these days, find it difficult to get a secure job, especially a secure part-time job. Very often these are women who may have one child, who may wish or need to work on a part-time basis but whose entitlement to help at the time of pregnancy with a second child would be greatly reduced because she will not have been able to build up the entitlement to maternity pay or maternity leave. Women in part-time employment suffer worse than women in full-time employment.
The people who suffer most are those who receive no benefit whatsoever. My hon. Friend placed particular emphasis on that group. My hon. Friend quoted figures which showed that 25 per cent. of the most vulnerable women in our society have no entitlement to maternity benefits other than the basic maternity grant. She pointed out that the basic maternity grant will provide very little by way of necessities for a small child, especially a first child. My hon. Friend is right to press for an immediate increase in the maternity grant. She said that it would cost £72 million to raise the maternity grant to the 1969 level which, in today's figures, would be £120. Even £120 would not provide all the necessities for a first child.
I ask my hon. Friend and the Minister to consider whether we ought not to differentiate between the level of maternity grant for a first child and the level of grant for a subsequent child. The first child requires most expense because of the need to acquire basic necessities such as a pram, a cot and so on. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind and if he feels unable to announce a general increase in maternity grants, perhaps he will consider the point that there should be this differentiation.
It is important to remember that this money will not only help the mother. It will undoubtedly help the child as well. If a mother is worried about her financial situation or if she cannot afford the nutrition that she needs during pregnancy, the health of the child will suffer in the long

term. This is not a selfish plea for more financial assistance to mothers, but a matter of the health and welfare of babies. Good nutrition in pregnancy is an investment in healthy children. Better maternity provisions generally would help women to have healthier babies, which in the long term will benefit the country as a whole and not just the families concerned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I thank the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) for raising and contributing to this debate on a subject of undoubted importance to us all, but especially to women affected by the problems of maternity pay and provision.
Although the existing provisions have already been described, it may help those present and those who may later read the report of the debate in Hansard if I begin by setting out as clearly as I can the help already available to women who are expecting babies.
First, as the House is well aware, almost all mothers receive the basic maternity grant of £25. Like previous Administrations, we have felt unable to give the priority to increasing that grant that has been called for today. We have, however, made some progress by turning a contributory benefit, which excluded quite a large number of women, into a non-contributory benefit with effect from last July. In some respects, that is a modest change as no-one could pretend that £25 is a large sum. Nevertheless, the grant is now available to 60,000 more mothers each year than was previously the case. Total maternity grant payments are estimated at about 700,000 per year compared with nearer 600,000 before the change. The cover has been extended by about 10 per cent., so we can at least be pleased about that.
The second element in maternity provision is the maternity allowance administered by the Department of Health and Social Security. This is usually £25 per week, unless there was some deficiency in the woman's contribution record when she stopped work because of pregnancy. As the hon. Member for Eton and Slough acknowledged, that allowance is paid for 11 weeks before the baby is due and continues for 18 weeks, although it may be extended if the baby is late. To receive the allowance, the woman must refrain from work and satisfy contribution conditions. It is thus available to women who have been in employment within a year or so of becoming pregnant. Eligibility depends to some extent on the timing. I accept that there may be complications in this respect as there are in relation to other national insurance benefits, due to the contributory principle.
Thirdly, entitlement to maternity pay from the employer arises if the woman has worked for the firm for at least two years. It is calculated at 90 per cent. of weekly earnings, less the standard maternity allowance, and is paid for the first six weeks of absence after the eleventh week before the baby is due. The Department of Employment reimburses the employer with a payment from the maternity pay fund.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]—I have more remarks to make on the main point without reading the notes that I receive from my hon. Friends, pleasing though it is to have so much attention from the Whips. In view of my previous experience, I have much fellow feeling for them in the position in which they have been placed in the past few minutes.
I have discussed the three main elements of provision for maternity in this country. I shall touch on a subject that nobody has mentioned and that should be taken into account in the argument—the extent to which help is available to many of the poorest members of our community. It has been implied that they do not get sufficient help through the operation of the supplementary benefit system. Under that scheme, single payments are available to pregnant women and to those who have recently given birth to or have adopted a baby if they are on supplementary benefit. That help covers such items as baby clothes, cot bedding, cots and prams.
In 1981, the last year for which figures are available, the Government spent £2·5 million on single payments for maternity needs to 61,000 people. The average payment was £43·50. I do not wish to exaggerate that figure, but 61,000 is substantial, and £43·50, as the average single payment of supplementary benefit, is more than the help that they would have received from the maternity grant. It puts a different perspecitive on some of the remarks that the two hon. Ladies made about the absence of help for the least well off in our community.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough mentioned the value of the grant. There is no gainsaying the fact that it has been losing purchasing power since it was increased to £25 in 1969. The date shows that it is not only under the present Government that that has happened. To have the same purchasing power as in 1969 the grant would have to be set at just under £120, which is the figure advocated by Maternity Alliance.
The Government have taken the view, as have successive Governments of both major parties since 1969, that while resources are scarce we should concentrate on maintaining the value of the continuing weekly benefits intended to cover day-to-day living expenses. To increase the grant to £120 would cost £65 million a year, in our estimation, not the £72 million that the hon. Lady mentioned. We must recognise that a large proportion of that money would go not to those who are most in need, whose cause was pleaded by the two hon. Ladies, but to everyone regardless of need.
Several suggestions have been put forward as to how an increase might be financed. Both hon. Ladies referred to the savings that the Government made by ending the earnings-related supplement. As I have said on other occasions in the House in debates about other benefits, the decision to abolish the earnings-related supplement, which was not easy or popular, was designed to reduce Government expenditure on social security as a whole in a way that would cause less hardship than other savings that might otherwise have had to be made. Against that background, it would be unrealistic and unreasonable for me to suggest, and even more foolish for me to accept, that that money could be available for spending in some other way. That would miss the point of the exercise when it was undertaken.
Both hon. Ladies and other hon. Members must face the fact that, although £65 million is not, in the sweep of Government spending, an unbelievably large sum, it is significant, and any Government must consider it against the background of other things on which the money could be spent. For example, it is about the same amount as would be required to restore the abatement of unemployment benefit, which has caused considerable

controversy and anxiety. It would put a little more than 10p on the weekly child benefit, which is again something that the House would be pleased to see.
The Guardian this morning published an interesting letter from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough pleading for the extension of the invalid care allowance to married women. That £65 million is almost exactly the sum that would be required to extend that allowance. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Lady, but if the £65 million—and no more—were available, would she spend it on the scheme mentioned in her letter in The Guardian this morning or on what she discussed in her speech tonight? If she were standing at this Dispatch Box instead of at the Opposition Dispatch Box, she would have to make the choice.
The Maternity Alliance figures have been mentioned several times. The alliance's table—I assume that I have the same table as the hon. Lady—purports to show that Britain is in the position that she described in relation to other European and Western industrialised countries. I cannot deny that the table shows the United Kingdom in an unhappy position in the league, but it does not include Italy or Holland, neither of which pays any grant. Holland's weekly provision is little more generous than that of the United Kingdom, but that country is not regarded as backward in providing social security. I do not place too much on that fact, but it is an illustration of the difficulties and dangers of international comparisons. Although there has been reference to the payments of more than £1,000 for a third child in France—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is filibustering.

Mr. Newton: —that sum is paid for triplets, not for the third child, as the alliance suggests.
The Maternity Alliance report says that the maternity allowance is to be taxed in 1983. That is not so. Although it remains our intention to bring the benefit into tax at some stage, no date has been fixed.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough made many comparisons between grants paid abroad and those paid here. However, those comparisons are not as clear-cut as is sometimes suggested. One must take into account other factors that are essentially important to Britain, such as the availability of free medical and dental care and other services and goods for mother and baby.
The hon. Lady mentioned the complexity of the system and some of the rules that govern it. She knows that the main reason for including a qualifying period as high as two years for maternity pay was to limit the cost to employers. Although they are entitled to claim rebates from the maternity pay fund, that is built up from part of their national insurance contributions. In present circumstances, we must take that into account.
When we consider these matters, we must consider the possibility that changes in the terms and conditions on which women can obtain maternity pay might lead some employers to wonder whether they should employ women who are likely to have babies. If there is any risk that, by improving maternity pay, one produces circumstances in which it is much more difficult for young women to get jobs, one may not have improved matters overall.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Newton: There is another point that concerns the two-year qualifying period with regard to part-time workers. It is important to recognise that the two-year qualifying period applies to anyone who works more than 16 hours a week. That includes those whom most people would define as part-time workers. The five-year qualifying period applies only to those part-time workers who work between eight and 16 hours a week. It is important to put that on the record.
The other major criticism was that maternity pay has been set at 90 per cent., rather than 100 per cent., of earnings since the end of the earnings-related supplement. The hon. Lady knows that the Government have stated that they intend to make it 100 per cent. again as soon as the economy allows them to do so. The order-making power to raise the level is in section 2 of the Social Security Act 1981. Our intentions remain as they were expressed then.
I am aware that the hon. Lady will think that I have been unable to move far to meet some of her principal points. Perhaps it is most constructive for me to recognise that both hon. Ladies asked me not to respond immediately, but to consider the matter in the context of longer-term maternity provision. They both know that I should like to rationalise the system and that in 1980 we published a consultative document that set out the options for possible change and, we thought, improvement. It was intended to discover whether there was a desire for a change of direction that would allow a redistribution of resources between mothers who qualify for benefits.
As we were constrained by economic circumstances, we had to consider only proposals that involved no additional expenditure. The hon. Ladies will know that the result of that consultation was that we found no consensus in favour of altering the distribution of benefits, so we concluded that no radical changes could be made in the provision for the time being.
The Social Services Select Committee and others have responded to the consultative document with several recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry made it clear that the right time to reconsider maternity benefits would probably occur when we had some experience of the statutory sick pay scheme and the working of the non-contributory maternity grant. I am happy to tell the hon. Ladies that we intend to review financial provisions for maternity benefit. Work on that should start next year, by which time the statutory sick pay scheme will have been in operation for some time and the non-contributory maternity grant will have been in operation for two years. Decisions about the nature and scope of the review will be taken nearer the time. The hon. Ladies may regard that as a small crumb, but I hope that they will be glad to have it placed firmly on the record as a commitment and an intention. When we mount the review, account will be taken of the constructive suggestions that they have made in the debate.

Orders of the Day — Unemployment (Scotland)

Mr. John Maxton: Can I begin by thanking the Minister very much for attending this evening to take part in what is now a brief Adjournment debate, the second one of the evening? I only hope that the tear-around he has had to get here has not ruined his digestion and that he does not suffer throughout the rest of the night.
I wish to raise with the Minister the question of the level of unemployment in Scotland. I made the topic deliberately broad because I thought that perhaps the earlier business would have finished and we would have had a longer debate, thus allowing some of my hon. Friends from other Scottish constituencies, and from English constituencies as well, to take part. However I think I shall be the only one able to speak, apart from the Minister.
This Government's record in Scotland is a series of broken promises. We all remember the election campaign poster which said "Education doesn't work under Scotland". This Minister is in charge of education in Scotland: his record in terms of expenditure cuts and the closing of educational provision in Scotland makes a mockery of that poster. The Conservative party said that a no vote would not mean the end of the Scottish Assembly. That promise has been broken, too. As soon as they returned to power they revoked the Scotland Bill, got rid of the Scottish Assembly and have made no attempt whatsoever to restore it in any form. This Government came into power promising greater autonomy to local government. What have they done? They have reduced the power of local government and, by this means, raised the level of unemployment.
It is in the area of employment more than any other that this Government have broken their promises to the electorate of Scotland. We can all remember the poster depicting the long dole queue of actors—because that is what they were—which the Tory party put out during the last election campaign under the now trite slogan "Labour isn't working", implying that Labour had caused unemployment in Scotland and that therefore the Labour Government should be thrown out. The Government now make excuses for the rise in unemployment. They blame the world recession, the trade unions, even Opposition Members, but never themselves. Yet in the last Parliament the Conservatives were very quick to blame the Labour Government for the higher levels of unemployment.
On 19 July 1977 the Scottish Grand Committee, at the instigation of the Conservative Opposition, debated the level of unemployment. It was a very odd debate in that it was opened by a Back-Bencher from the Conservative side and closed by another Conservative Back-Bencher. It was opened by the late Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, the then Member for Renfrewshire, East. She said:
The very existence of this country depends upon the full use of our human resources and the profitable result of their Labour, profitable both to them and to the nation, yet we discuss this matter this morning against the tragic background of the worst unemployment figures since the war.
We must continue to repeat these figures.
She went on to say.
We cannot tolerate the position of 162,000 people in Scotland unemployed, 25,000 of them school leavers and 140,000 long-term unemployed.
She went on to quote from a letter in the Glasgow Herald.


'If you want to destroy a civilization, force your youth into idleness'".
The debate in the Scottish Grand Committee was closed by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve), who became a Minister in the early years of this Parliament. He said:
Since the Labour Party came to power unemployment has doubled, and has now reached the staggering figure of 186,000.
Mark you, there seems to be some difference between the figures used by the hon. Lady at the beginning and those used by the hon. Gentleman at the end. The hon. Member said:
Seventy-one thousand more people in Scotland who had jobs when the Tories left office no longer have them. A further 25,000 young people are looking for jobs after leaving school.
He added:
Apart from the personal humiliation of being unable to get a job, what a way for any country to treat its young people starting out in life".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 19 July 1977; c. 184–229.]
There are 333,200 people unemployed in Scotland today.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is slightly out.

Mr. Maxton: That is the December figure and I apologise if I am slightly out of date. If the Minister will allow it, my hon. Friend could perhaps give the figures. They compare with the hon. Member saying in 1977 that 186,000 was a staggering figure.
I am bound to admit that there is a world recession, although there has been one since 1973. However, when in Opposition the Tories were not prepared to admit that some of the unemployment that existed in Scotland was due to the world recession. We are prepared to admit that, but the largest part of it is due to the Government's policies; the cuts in public expenditure, particularly in the construction industry which relies heavily upon public investment in housing, sewerage, water works and roads. As a result, one in four of unemployed people in Scotland are construction workers. It is one of the areas in which the Government have created unemployment.
The Government have also caused unemployment by reducing the general level of demand in our society. They have held down pensions and social security benefits and forced down wages. If wages are forced down below the level of inflation the spending power of the individual is reduced. It lowers demand and creates unemployment elsewhere.
The Government are keen to say that unless inflation is cured there will be ever-rising unemployment, but the way that they have cured it—if they have—has meant, equally, rising unemployment. There is a vicious circle which appears to have no end.
Unemployment affects all constituencies. In my constituency the present level is 20 per cent. Hon. Members who know my constituency know that half of it is made up of middle-class housing where the level of unemployment is comparatively low. The average figure of 20 per cent. comes from a large housing estate, where unemployment runs at over 30 per cent. There are 35,000 people on that estate. Before the Government took office the level was still too high. It was about 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. We talk too often about unemployment in statistical terms, but it is really about human beings who do not have the dignity of work, who cannot obtain a job

and as a result feel humiliated in the eyes of their peers and feel that they have let their families down because they cannot provide a decent standard of living for them.
I remember once going into the Labour club at Cathcart. I sat down and started to talk to a man who was always full of bonhomie. He used to work for Talbot at Linwood. He was sitting on his own. Before he was unemployed he would sit with his friends. They had rounds of drinks, although not too many; they played dominoes and cards. I said to him "What are you doing, Benny? Why are you sitting here on your own like this?" He said "Well, John, I cannot afford to buy my round of drinks and, therefore, I am not prepared to be humiliated by being treated constantly by my friends who are in work. That may sound sad. Perhaps he should not have been drinking there, but it is often the one relief for a man. It is sad that he cannot enjoy the companionship of his friends because of his pride and his feeling that he would be humiliated if he drank with them. That is what unemployment means. The Government are destroying people.
The list of companies and towns that have been decimated by the Government is endless—there is Talbot, Weir Pumps, Timex, Invergordon, Bathgate and so on. They have been decimated by the Government's economic policies in Scotland. No Minister or Government can be proud of that. It has happened because of the Government's policies. There are alternatives—massive increase in public expenditure could swing round the economy. For example, Glasgow is desperately in need of housing and an injection of public expenditure would provide both jobs and housing.
The Government must change their mind and reverse their policy. If they cannot do that, the sooner a general election comes the sooner a Labour Government with alternative policies will take power.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on raising this important matter. It is a pity that Scottish Members of Parliament cannot debate such an issue more frequently. There was an interesting debate yesterday in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh. We cannot vote on controversial or substantive motions in that Committee. It is a pity that we do not more often talk about matters of central importance to Scotland.
My hon. Friend was right to raise the vital matter of unemployment. Figures provided by the House of Commons Library show that Glasgow has seven districts of the 20 heading the high unemployment league. Thirteen of Scotland's 71 constituencies have unemployment levels of more than 20 per cent. That is appalling. It is tragic that the Government have managed to turn Scotland into an industrial desert. It is also tragic that Scotland has become almost an under-developed country that must rely more and more on imports of manufactured goods.

Mr. David Lambie: Does my hon. Friend realise that not only the old industrial cities such as Glasgow are suffering but the new towns such as Irvine in my constituency—a so-called growth point of Scotland—which has more than 6,000 people unemployed. That is a record for Scotland, with a male


unemployment figure of more than 50 per cent. The whole of Scotland, including the growth areas, is affected by unemployment.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. Even the supposedly well-off constituencies such as mine, in the relatively rural areas, are suffering more and more from the affliction of unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart covered the need to stoke up the economy to get people back to work—creating wealth rather than using up the wealth obtained from North Sea oil to pay unemployment benefits.
The Government and Scottish Office Ministers have failed to maintain Scotland's development incentives in comparison with the English regions, recent press reports show that there is a likelihood that development incentives in the Midlands will become more attractive than those in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point. It would be shocking if that happened. I could raise many more matters of importance, but I hope that the Minister will see fit to nail that one point tonight.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): rose—

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Has the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) got the Minister's permission to make a brief intervention?

Mr. Fletcher: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he has not. I have only 10 minutes.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I record through you, on a point of order, that the Minister was afraid to answer questions on Alcan at Falkirk?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an unfair point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: It is not even a point of order.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) started his speech by accusing the Government of having a record of broken promises. He started with education. I am glad that he did, because he will know that the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland is the best that it has ever been. As one who was previously employed in education, the hon. Gentleman will know how important that is in Scotland, as it is elsewhere. He will know, too, that great progress has been made with the introduction of the Munn and Dunning proposals, which will revolutionise the curriculum.

Mrs. Helen McElhone: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I have only 10 minutes in which to reply to what has been said in the debate.
The proposals will cause a great revolution in the curriculum, syllabus and assessment of 14 to 16-year-olds, and are widely welcomed by educationists in Scotland.
Last week we announced the introduction of an all-graduate teaching profession in Scotland, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will greatly welcome, although whether he is willing to admit that it is a different matter.

Yesterday, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, we discussed in some detail the Government's proposals for the 16 to 18-year-olds and the important new system of education, training, and flexibility between schools and further education colleges, the new modules, and the new certificate of vocational studies.

Mrs. McElhone: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I am very sorry to say that I cannot give way. I must reply to the points that have been raised in this short debate.
In September of this year the youth training scheme will be introduced. These are all important innovatiors that the Government have introduced during past three and a half years. Certainly in education, there is no basis whatever for the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to suggest that somehow the Government have either broken their promises or, by their policy on public expenditure, done anything other than help education in Scotland to a very considerable extent. [Interruption.] That is something that, as a former educationist, the hon. Member for Cathcart cannot possibly ignore, whatever he may choose to say in public in this House. [Interruption.] I am following the pattern of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I listened to with great care. I have spent two minutes on education, and I am now happy to consider what he said about unemployment.
The hon. Member quoted my former right hon. Friend Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, and some remarks that she made some years ago on unemployment. He ignored what his right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ross of Marnock said when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that he would resign his office if unemployment exceeded 100,000. While he was in office, unemployment did exceed 100,000, and the right hon. Gentleman did not resign. So, if the hon. Member for Cathcart is trying to present a balanced and constructive view of either the economic or political situation in Scotland, he should not be as selective as he has chosen to be, even in this short debate.
Then there is the matter of regional policy. West central Scotland is the largest special development area in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will it stay that way?

Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that Scotland will continue to be a top priority area for regional policy in the United Kingdom. He mentioned some newspaper reports in the Scottish press, which I saw. This Government, like any other Government preparing for a new Parliament, are considering what improvements can be made to regional policy. There is no reason to suggest that Scotland will be disadvantaged, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am bound to say, as the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the west midlands, that I am suréhe is aware that unemployment there is higher than it is in Scotland. It is not surprising that proposals might be brought forward to bring some benefits to the west midlands.
On top of the strong regional policy supported by the five new towns in Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the three enterprise zones, Scotland has a


record level of grants and loans from the EC. Well over £1 billion in grants and loans has come to Scotland—about a quarter of the United Kingdom's share—since the United Kingdom joined the EC.
Yet the Labour party's policy is to withdraw from the EC. I cannot believe that Labour Members who mention unemployment and regional policy in Scotland think that it would be good for regional policy, employment and inward investment in Scotland if we were to withdraw from the EC. The hon. Member for Cathcart nods his head, which suggests that he is in favour of withdrawal from the EC. I see that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is nodding too, yet he pleads with me to bring inward investment to his constituency. I make no complaint about that, but Labour Members must accept that it is not entirely the attractiveness of Scotland, or even the Scottish working population, that encourages inward investment; it is the fact that investors in Scotland have the potential of the largest single common market in the world. Despite Labour Members' tears and complaints about unemployment, their policies are diabolically—[Interruption.]—diametrically opposed—they are also diabolical—to the remedies that are essential for the reinvigoration and regeneration of the Scottish economy.
The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned some of the closures, and they are matters of great sadness—[Interruption.] They may give Labour Members great satisfaction, but they do not give me great satisfaction. Seven hundred jobs have been lost today in the aluminium industry in Falkirk. The world aluminium industry has never gone through a longer period of recession. That is why, sadly, about 800 jobs were lost at Invergordon last year and why 700 jobs have been lost in Falkirk today. That has happened despite a great deal of Government support to keep those jobs going.
The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned Linwood. Frankly, if any factory threw its prospects away it was Linwood. It had three of four lives under different owners and on each occasion it failed to produce motor cars that people wanted to buy. That is why there is no motor industry at Linwood today. At the moment the demand for motor cars is growing in the United Kingdom, but not the share of British manufacturers. I am sorry to say that, in the past decade, British Leyland's share of the domestic market has halved, whereas the share of the market going to importers has increased to well over 50 per cent. That is a measure of the need for competitiveness which has been stressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others constantly at the Dispatch Box. If we want jobs in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom, we must also want an industry that is competitive and viable, whether it is producing motor cars, aluminium or anything else.
The Government's policy is to reduce inflation and interest rates. We now have a healthy balance of payments and the Government are successfully implementing the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. However, that is not enough in itself. We need the inventors. The industrial history of Scotland is full of people who have started businesses—entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors. Even today, Scotland is a source of new industries. In about 12 years the oil and gas industries have created about 100,000 new jobs in Scotland; electronics, 40,000 jobs; and banking, insurance and financial services, about 80,000 jobs. All that is happening even at a time of serious world recession—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.